Cruse v. Aden

CourtSupreme Court of Illinois
Citation20 N.E. 73,127 Ill. 231
Decision Date26 January 1889
PartiesCRUSE v. ADEN.

127 Ill. 231
20 N.E. 73

CRUSE
v.
ADEN.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

January 26, 1889.


Appeal from appellate court, Fourth district.


[127 Ill. 234]

[20 N.E. 74]

W. S. Day, P. E. Hileman, and D. W. Karraker, for appellant.

Monroe C. Crawford and H. F. Bussey, for appellee.


[127 Ill. 232]On the 4th day of November, 1884, George A. Cruse, husband of appellant, Julia Ann Cruse, was, while intoxicated, thrown from his horse, and received injuries from which he shortly afterwards died. Thereupon said Julia Ann Cruse, his widow, prosecuted this suit in the circuit court of Union county against Adde Aden, since deceased, and obtained against him judgment for $800 damages. The suit was brought to recover damages for injury to her means of support, and the declaration concluded: ‘And by force of the statute in such case made and provided an action has accrued to her against defendant for the recovery of her said damages in the premises, and therefore she brings her suit,’ etc. Upon the appeal of the said Adde Aden to the appellate court of the Fourth district, the judgment of the circuit court was reversed, and the final order and judgment of said appellate court found and recited the facts of the case to be as follows: ‘Julia Ann Cruse, appellee and plaintiff below, at the time of the commencement of her suit was the widow of George A. Cruse, who died intestate; that during his life he furnished means of support to said appellee, and died intestate, leaving [127 Ill. 233]a farm and other property of which he died seised and possessed; in his life-time he carried on his farm and was a strong and able-bodied man, capable of working as a farmer up to the time of his death; that by his death his widow was injured in her means of support; that the proximate cause of the accident which resulted in his death was intoxication, and that two drinks given him by appellant contributed to cause such intoxication; that said two drinks of intoxicating liquor were given to said husband of appellee by appellant as an act of mere courtesy and politeness, and not for any pay, profit, benefit, or advantage to appellant, or intended by appellant to gain for him any pay, profit, benefit, or advantage; and that appellant and said husband of appellee, at the time said two drinks were so given, were friends and acquaintances, and appellant was not then engaged, directly or indirectly, in the sale or traffic in intoxicating liquors.’ Upon application of said Julia Ann Cruse, appellee in the appellate court and appellant here, the appellate court certified that ‘the case involves questions of law of such importance on account of principal and collateral interests as that it should be passed upon by the supreme court,’ and granted to said Julia Ann Cruse an appeal to this court, which was duly perfected. Said appellate court further certified to this court the following grounds for granting said appeal, to-wit: ‘ First. That said supreme court may pass upon and decide whether or not, under section 9 of the dram-shop act of this state, a recovery can be had against a person other than a dram-shop keeper, or person who makes a business of dealing in intoxicating liquors; and whether, under said section 9, all persons, though not engaged in the liquor traffic, can be held liable for selling or giving intoxicating drinks to another, thereby in whole or in part causing intoxication and injury, etc. Second. Whether or not, upon the facts found by this court in its judgment of reversal, a recovery can be had under said section 9 by appellee against appellant.’Since the pendency of the appeal in the supreme court the death of said Adde Aden has been suggested, and Caroline Aden, his administratrix, has been substituted as appellee in his place and stead.

BAKER, J., ( after stating the facts as above.)

If we rightly apprehend one of the claims made by counsel for appellant in his argument presented to this court, it is this: that it is not the character of the transaction or of the individual that controls the right of action involved in this suit; that such right of action existed before the statute was enacted; that every person is answerable under the law for an injury done to another; and that section 9 of the dram-shop act simply saves all remedies, and even enlarges them, so that it cannot be claimed that dram-shop keepers are exempt from damage suits of the character here in question simply because they are operating under a license from public authority for which they have paid large sums into the public treasury. This position is not...

To continue reading

Request your trial
85 practice notes
  • Vesely v. Sager
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • June 24, 1971
    ...received by the purchaser because of his intoxication. Joyce on Intoxicating Liquors, Page 628 [486 P.2d 156] § 421; Cruse v. Aden, 127 Ill. 231, 234, (20 N.E. 73, 3 L.R.A. 327).' (186 Cal. at p. 384, 199 P. at p. The dictum in Lammers was relied upon in Hitson v. Dwyer (1943) 61 Cal.App.2d......
  • Simmons v. John D. Homatas (on Stage Prod.S Inc, No. 108108.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • March 18, 2010
    ...1889, this court clarified that the Dramshop Act created a cause of action only against those engaged in the liquor trade. Cruse v. Aden, 127 Ill. 231, 239, 20 N.E. 73 (1889). The legislature did not intend to extend liability to a social host “who, in his own house, or elsewhere, gives a g......
  • Hollerud v. Malamis, Docket No. 4173
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)
    • December 10, 1969
    ...is based on the defendant tavern owners' alleged fault in selling him liquor when he was visibly intoxicated. In Cruse v. Aden (1889), 127 Ill. 231, 20 N.E. 73, the Supreme Court of Illinois declared (in dictum), without citation of authority, that at common law it was not a tort to sell or......
  • Cravens v. Inman, No. 1-90-1124
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • December 19, 1991
    ...The Dram Shop Act has been the subject of numerous judicial pronouncements. Two Illinois Supreme Court decisions, Cruse v. Aden (1889), 127 Ill. 231, 20 N.E. 73 and Cunningham v. Brown (1961), 22 Ill.2d 23, 174 N.E.2d 153, are cited by the parties in the case at bar as particularly signific......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
84 cases
  • Vesely v. Sager
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • June 24, 1971
    ...received by the purchaser because of his intoxication. Joyce on Intoxicating Liquors, Page 628 [486 P.2d 156] § 421; Cruse v. Aden, 127 Ill. 231, 234, (20 N.E. 73, 3 L.R.A. 327).' (186 Cal. at p. 384, 199 P. at p. The dictum in Lammers was relied upon in Hitson v. Dwyer (1943) 61 Cal.App.2d......
  • Simmons v. John D. Homatas (on Stage Prod.S Inc, No. 108108.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • March 18, 2010
    ...1889, this court clarified that the Dramshop Act created a cause of action only against those engaged in the liquor trade. Cruse v. Aden, 127 Ill. 231, 239, 20 N.E. 73 (1889). The legislature did not intend to extend liability to a social host “who, in his own house, or elsewhere, gives a g......
  • Hollerud v. Malamis, Docket No. 4173
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)
    • December 10, 1969
    ...is based on the defendant tavern owners' alleged fault in selling him liquor when he was visibly intoxicated. In Cruse v. Aden (1889), 127 Ill. 231, 20 N.E. 73, the Supreme Court of Illinois declared (in dictum), without citation of authority, that at common law it was not a tort to sell or......
  • Cravens v. Inman, No. 1-90-1124
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • December 19, 1991
    ...The Dram Shop Act has been the subject of numerous judicial pronouncements. Two Illinois Supreme Court decisions, Cruse v. Aden (1889), 127 Ill. 231, 20 N.E. 73 and Cunningham v. Brown (1961), 22 Ill.2d 23, 174 N.E.2d 153, are cited by the parties in the case at bar as particularly signific......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • The Common Law as a Guide to State Constitutional Interpretation.
    • United States
    • Suffolk University Law Review Vol. 54 Nbr. 4, September 2021
    • September 22, 2021
    ...Jeanne Matthews Bender, Tort Liability for Serving Alcohol: An Expanding Doctrine, 46 MONT. L. REV. 381,381 (1985) (quoting Cruse v. Aden, 20 N.E. 73, 74 (1889)) (explaining cannot recover for injuries from consuming alcohol bought or (202.) 257 P.3d917(N.M. 2011). (203.) See id. at 920 (se......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT