Eddy v. Courtright

• Decision Date: 08 April 1892
• Citation: 91 Mich. 264,51 N.W. 887
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: EDDY v. COURTRIGHT.

51 N.W. 887

91 Mich. 264

EDDY v. COURTRIGHT.

Supreme Court of Michigan

April 8, 1892

Error to circuit court, Newaygo county; J. H. PALMER, Judge.

Action by Lucinda Eddy against William Courtright to recover for an injury alleged to have been caused by the unlawful act of defendant in selling liquor to plaintiff's decedent. A demurrer to the declaration was sustained, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed.

Turner, Turner & Turner, for appellant.

George Luton, (E. L. Gray, of counsel,) for appellee.

MONTGOMERY J.

This action is brought to recover for an injury alleged to have been occasioned to plaintiff by means of the defendant having unlawfully sold intoxicating liquors to her son James Eddy thereby producing the intoxication of her said son, who by reason of his intoxication was drowned. The defendant demurred to the declaration, alleging as grounds of demurrer- First, that the damages averred are too remote second, that the declaration fails to state how the son of plaintiff was drowned, and by what means third, that, the declaration averring that the son was upwards of 21 years of age, no part of his earnings belonged to the plaintiff, unless her support by the son has been required by order of court, which is not alleged fourth, that the declaration does not allege that the son contributed to the plaintiff any definite sum for her support. The demurrer was sustained by the circuit judge, and plaintiff appeals.

The 1st, 3d, and 4th of the grounds alleged may be considered together, as each depends upon the construction to be given to the statute. The declaration does allege "that for 26 years the plaintiff had been living with her son, and during said time obtained and received her support from him, which was of great value to her, to-wit, five hundred dollars per annum; that the defendant, unjustly and wrongfully intending to injure the plaintiff, and to deprive her of her means of support so by her received, and to have been received, of and from her said son," committed the acts complained of as alleged; and then proceeds to charge that the defendant, by means of the unlawful sales alleged, "contributed to the drunkenness of said James Eddy, and to the loss by said plaintiff of her means of support by her to have been received but for the intoxication of her said son as aforesaid," and concludes with a general averment of damages. These averments are certainly sufficiently definite to show a loss by the plaintiff resulting from the wrongful act of defendant, if it be held that the action is given by the statute to a person standing in the relation to the person intoxicated which the plaintiff in this case sustained. The statute (Act 313, Laws 1887, � 20) provides "Every wife, child, parent, guardian, husband, or other person who shall be injured in person or property or means of support or otherwise by any intoxicated person, or by reason of the intoxication of any person, or by reason of the selling, giving, or furnishing any spirituous, intoxicating, fermented, or malt liquor to any person, shall have a right of action in his or her own name against any person or persons who shall, by the selling or giving any intoxicating or malt liquor, have caused or contributed to the intoxication of such person or persons, or who have caused or contributed to such injury." It will be seen that the language of the statute is broad enough to include the present plaintiff. She is the parent of the intoxicated person, and is injured in her means of support by his death. This court has always construed this statute liberally, and has not deemed that the true legislative intent was to be ascertained by any strained or narrow construction of the words employed. In Clinton v. Laning, 61 Mich. 355, 28 N.W. 125, the father sued for damages occasioned by the defendant having contributed to the drunkenness of plaintiff's adult son, by means of which the son became helpless, and the father thereupon assumed his care. It was contended that the father could not recover until he showed that an order had been made requiring ...