Jackson County v. Enright
Decision Date | 18 February 1918 |
Docket Number | No. 12522.,12522. |
Citation | 198 Mo. App. 527,201 S.W. 599 |
Parties | JACKSON COUNTY v. ENRIGHT et al. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Kimbrough Stone, Judge.
Action by the County of Jackson, on the relation of Orbie Bryson, against M. M. Enright and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Sparrow & Page, of Kansas City, for appellants. E. C. Hamilton, of Independence, for respondent.
Relator, Orbie Bryson, as the wife of George W. Bryson, deceased, brought this action against defendant Enright as principal and defendants Heins and Gray as sureties on a statutory dramshop bond, alleging that on ten different occasions defendant Enright, the keeper of the saloon, sold intoxicating liquor to her said husband, George W. Bryson, an habitual drunkard, after she had notified him not to do so, and further alleging that finally in a fit of intoxication her husband committed suicide by taking poison. Plaintiff recovered a judgment in the sum of $2,000, the same being the maximum penalty for four sales of intoxicating liquor made to deceased by defendant Enright, and defendants have appealed.
Defendants urge that the bond was given in the name of the state of Missouri, and not in the name of the county, as required by section 7196, R. S. 1909, and that their demurrer to the evidence should have been sustained. The petition alleges that defendants executed according to law the dramshop license bond sued upon, and having described a valid instrument and defendants having failed to deny its execution under oath, its execution, as described, stands confessed. Johnson v. Woodmen of the World, 119 Mo. App. loc. cit. 102, 95 S. W. 951; Love v. Central Life Ins. Co., 92 Mo. App. 192. The execution of the bond having been admitted by the defendants, plaintiff introduced evidence and rested her case without introducing the bond in evidence.
During the cross-examination by plaintiff of the defendant Enright, while the defendants were putting in their case, Enright refused to say that he had executed the bond, and for the purpose of showing his signature thereto and the execution thereof by Enright plaintiff introduced the bond in evidence, apparently overlooking the fact that the pleadings settled all of these matters in favor of plaintiff. The bond thus introduced in evidence was made in favor of the state of Missouri. The bond was not introduced by plaintiff in support of her case. Defendant Enright objected to the introduction in evidence of the bond, and at no time did defendants themselves introduce the bond in evidence. A defense that the bond was not properly executed was not made at the trial. The burden of the defense was that plaintiff never warned the saloon keeper or any of his agents not to sell liquor to the deceased, that plaintiff's character was bad, and that she was not worthy of belief. The case was not tried on the theory that the bond was not executed in the name of the county. Defendants, having admitted the execution of the bond, the same not being introduced by plaintiff in making her case (but only during the defense for impeachment purposes), and defendants having failed to use the bond as a matter of defense, but tried the case on other theories, we fail to see how any question affecting the validity of the bond can now be raised. It is stated in Johnson v. Woodmen of the World, supra:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Home Trust Co. v. Josephson
...App. 390; Beck & Pauli Lith. Co. v. Obert, 54 Mo. App. 240; Avery Co. v. Powell, 174 Mo. App. 628, 161 S.W. 335; Jackson County v. Enright, 198 Mo. App. 527, 201 S.W. 599; Love v. Cent. Life Ins. Co., 92 Mo. App. 192. If by this allegation defendant intended to claim an alteration, there wa......
-
Camdenton Consol. School Dist. v. N.Y. Cas. Co., 33645.
... . 104 S.W.2d 319 . CAMDENTON CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 6 OF CAMDEN COUNTY, a Corporation, ex rel. W.H. POWELL LUMBER COMPANY, a Corporation, . v. . NEW YORK CASUALTY ...Nolan, 288 S.W. 1007; Metz v. Warrick, 217 Mo. App. 505, 269 S.W. 626; County of Jackson ex rel. Bryson v. Enright, 198 Mo. App. 527; Henry County v. Salmon, 201 Mo. 136; St. Louis v. ......
-
Home Trust Co. v. Josephson
...... . Appeal. from Jackson Circuit Court; Hon. C. Jasper Bell ,. Judge. . . . Reversed and remanded ...Obert, 54 Mo.App. 240; Avery Co. v. Powell, 174 Mo.App. 628, 161 S.W. 335; Jackson. County v. Enright, 198 Mo.App. 527, 201 S.W. 599;. Love v. Cent. Life Ins. Co., 92 Mo.App. 192. If by. ......
-
Camdenton Consol. School Dist. No. 6 of Camden County ex rel. W. H. Powell Lumber Co. v. New York Cas. Co.
......v. Rubber Mfg. Co., 149. Mo. 181; Inman v. Nolan, 288 S.W. 1007; Metz v. Warrick, 217 Mo.App. 505, 269 S.W. 626; County of. Jackson ex rel. Bryson v. Enright, 198 Mo.App. 527;. Henry County v. Salmon, 201 Mo. 136; St. Louis. v. Surety Co., 333 Mo. 180; State ex rel. ......