Kellerman v. Arnold
| Decision Date | 31 January 1874 |
| Citation | 1874 WL 8740,71 Ill. 632 |
| Parties | JOHN KELLERMANv.PHŒBE ARNOLD. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Coles county; the Hon. OLIVER L. DAVIS, Judge, presiding.
Messrs. FICKLIN & CUNNINGHAM, for the appellant.
Mr. HORACE S. CLARK, for the appellee. Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE BREESE delivered the opinion of the Court:
This was an action on the case, brought to the circuit court of Coles county, by Phœbe Arnold against John Kellerman, under the fifth section of the Liquor Law, so called, in which, on a trial by jury, the plaintiff had a verdict of fifteen hundred dollars as damages.
To reverse this judgment, the defendant appeals and assigns several errors, the most important of which are, that the verdict is against the law and the evidence, that the damages are excessive, that punitive damages were given when no actual damages were proved, and in giving erroneous instructions.
We have so fully examined all the questions made on this record, in the cases of Meidel v. Anthis, 71Ill., p. 241, and Freese v. Tripp, 70 Ill. 496, that it is unnecessary to enter into an elaborate discussion here, as this case is so similar to those to which reference is made.
The difference between Meidel and Anthis' case, and this, is, that, in the former, the plaintiff's husband was a hardworking, money-making man, on whose labor the plaintiff relied for support, and who did support her well, but as it was not shown her means of support had, in any respect, been diminished by the selling to him intoxicating drinks, nor any injury to her person or property established, she was not entitled to recover. It was held, in both cases, that exemplary damages could not be allowed without finding some actual damages.
In this case, the plaintiff's husband was proved to be a chronic drunkard, a lazy, shiftless fellow, who had never, at any time of his life, had any property, or contributed, in any considerable degree, to his wife's support. He was a plasterer by trade, and had always been accustomed to spend, in the winter, at various dram shops, the small earnings of the spring and summer. This had been his habit for many years before the passage of the act of 1872. Appellant, having a license to sell intoxicating liquors, knew of this habit, and was liable to pay such damages as his wife might sustain by selling to him, provided she was “injured in person or property or means of support” thereby. There is no evidence that she has been injured in person. It was proved by her testimony that, since the first of July, 1872, her husband, when drunk, kicked a table over, which she had purchased with her own money, and broke it. This table, when whole, she says, was worth five or six dollars. What the extent of the breakage was, does not appear. It is not shown her means of support have been in the least abridged by this sale of liquor to him by appellant. Nothing is shown to entitle her to actual damages...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pegram v. Stortz
...sold intoxicating liquors to the husband. This case has been frequently approved in other Illinois cases. See Kellerman v. Arnold, 71 Ill. 632; Fentz v. Meadows, 72 Ill. 540; Albrecht v. Walker, 73 Ill. 69. These decisions seem to me to be right, so far as they require aggravating circumsta......
-
Pegram v. Stortz
... ... As instances of this ... character, I would refer to a few cases: See Meidel ... v. Anthis , 71 Ill. 241; Kellerman ... v. Arnold , Id ... 635; Keedy ... v. Howe , 72 Ill. 137. According to the rule ... above laid down, the jury, by their verdict for the ... ...
-
Randall Dairy Co. v. Pevely Dairy Co.
...defendant cites Betting v. Hobbett, 42 Ill.App. 174;Martin v. Leslie, 93 Ill.App. 44;Meidel v. Anthis, 71 Ill. 241; and Kellerman v. Arnold, 71 Ill. 632. Conceding that these cases hold to that principle, we are nevertheless of the opinion that those holdings have been superseded by later d......
-
Chicago Legal News Co. v. Browne
...v. Smith, 57 Ill. 256; Lawrence v. Hageman, 56 Ill. 69; Stillwell v. Barnett, 60 Ill. 210; Brantigan v. White, 73 Ill. 564; Killunan v. Arnold, 71 Ill. 632; Meidel v. Anthis, 71 Ill. 241; Bates v. Davis, 76 Ill. 222. MCALLISTER, J. The matters set up in the special pleas are to be regarded ......