Goulding v. Phillips

• Decision Date: 13 July 1904
• Citation: 100 N.W. 516,124 Iowa 496
• Parties: GOULDING v. PHILLIPS ET AL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

124 Iowa 496

100 N.W. 516

GOULDING

v.PHILLIPS ET AL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

July 13, 1904.

Appeal from District Court, Linn County; H. M. Remley, Judge.

This suit was brought by the plaintiff, as the guardian of Marguerite A. Goulding, to recover damages caused by the sale of intoxicating liquor to George K. Goulding, the father of Marguerite A. Goulding. There was a trial to a jury, and a verdict and judgment for the defendants. The plaintiff appeals. Reversed.Rickel, Crocker & Tourtellot, for appellant.

Jamison & Smyth, for appellees.

SHERWIN, J.

The plaintiff herein, Alice P. Goulding, and George K. Goulding were married about 1882, and lived together as husband and wife until his death, in October, 1897. Marguerite A. Goulding is the daughter of the plaintiff and the deceased, and lived with them and was supported and recognized by the deceased from her birth until his death. After the death of George K. Goulding, it was shown in legal proceedings that the plaintiff was not his legal wife, because of the fact that a former wife was living, from whom he had not been divorced. It was also conclusively shown at the same time and in the same proceedings, as it was in the trial of this case, that during the life of George K. Goulding he had fully recognized Marguerite A. Goulding as his child.

This suit is bottomed upon section 2418 of the Code, which, so far as is material to this case, is as follows: “Civil Action for Damages by Wife, Child, Parent, Guardian,” etc. “Every wife, child, parent, guardian, employer or other person who shall be injured in person or property or means of support by any intoxicated person, shall have a right of action in his or her own name against any person who shall, by selling or giving to another, contrary to the provisions of this chapter, any intoxicating liquors, causing the intoxication of such person, for all damages actually sustained, as well as exemplary damages.” There can be no question as to the right of action under this statute. It is expressly given to any person who shall be injured in person, property, or means of support; and, if it were necessary to hold the ward an illegitimate, the action could still be maintained, because of this express language of the statute. But no issue was raised as to the legitimacy of this ward, and, had there been, it could not have availed the defendants, because of the undisputed facts in the case, and because of the statute (Code, § 2250). By the common law, it is the duty of parents to support their minor children. This duty is said by Blackstone to be founded on a principle of natural law; that by begetting them “they have entered into a voluntary obligation to endeavor, as far as in them lies, that the life which they have bestowed shall be supported and preserved. And thus children will have the perfect right of receiving maintenance from the parents.” 1 Bl. Com. 447. This duty has been held to be a legal as well as a moral obligation. Porter v. Powell, 79 Iowa, 151, 44 N. W. 295, 7 L. R. A. 176, 18 Am. St. Rep. 353;Johnson v. Barnes, 69 Iowa, 641, 29 N. W. 759; Dawson v. Dawson, 12 Iowa, 513. In England, by the statutes of Elizabeth and George II, the parents were bound to maintain the illegitimate child, and compulsory means were adopted against them both; and, under our own statute (Code, § 2250), the putative father of an...