Eckert v. Davis
| Decision Date | 02 October 1888 |
| Citation | 75 Iowa 302,39 N.W. 513 |
| Parties | ECKERT v. DAVIS ET AL. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from district court, Worth county; G. W. RUDDICK, Judge.
Action in equity against Davis and others and the John Gund Brewing Company, and the relief asked is an injunction to restrain the defendants from the commission of a nuisance by selling and keeping for sale intoxicating liquors in a certain building on real estated owned by the appellant. The relief asked was granted, and the brewing company appeals.L. S. Butler, for appellant.
Pickering & Hartley and Ed. Collin, for appellee.
The facts are that the defendants Davis and Lamb entered into possession of the premises in which it is claimed the nuisance existed, and it will be conceded they did so under a parol lease from one Knutsen, who claimed to be acting as the agent of the appellant, but whether he was authorized to lease the real estate is doubtful; but we think the appellant knew the defendants were occupying the premises. Under the evidence, however, it is uncertain whether the appellant had knowledge that intoxicating liquors were sold or kept for sale therein. The appellant is a resident of or located in La Crosse, Wis., and none of its officers had such knowledge, but possibly Knutsen had. It will be conceded he had such knowledge, and that he was an agent of the appellant. The evidence shows the defendants sold and kept for sale intoxicating liquors on said premises, and they failed to answer or deny the allegations of the petition, and have failed to appear. The defendants entered into possession about the 1st day of November, 1885, and the petition in this case was filed on the 1st day of March, 1886. On February 19, 1886, a notice was served on the appellant, notifying it that such petition would be filed on said day. The evidence is meager and indefinite, but we think it appears from a preponderance thereof that the appellant made efforts in good faith to compel the defendants to vacate the premises. The evidence tends to show an action was commenced having this end in view. It further appears from a preponderance of the evidence that the defendants removed all intoxicating liquors from the premises on the 27th day of February, 1886, and surrendered possession thereof about March 6, 1886, to the appellant. As to the first fact just stated the evidence is not clear and definite, but we think the probabilities are as we have stated. From the time the...
To continue reading
Request your trial