King v. Haley

• Decision Date: 30 September 1877
• Citation: 1877 WL 9672,29 Am.Rep. 14,86 Ill. 106
• Parties: WILLIAM H. KINGv.WILLIAM HALEY et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

86 Ill. 106

1877 WL 9672 (Ill.)

29 Am.Rep. 14

WILLIAM H. KING

v.WILLIAM HALEY et al.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

September Term, 1877.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Lee County; the Hon. W. W. HEATON, Judge, presiding.

This suit was brought by William H. King against William Haley and Rudolp Heideklaing, to recover damages for personal injuries inflicted upon him by Solomon Koffman while intoxicated with spirituous liquors sold to him by defendants. In the first count, among other things, it is averred defendants were each of them engaged in the business of selling intoxicating liquors, and that on November 30, 1875, at Rochelle, in Ogle county, defendants sold Koffman intoxicating liquors which were drank by him, and, being intoxicated in consequence of the liquors so sold to and drank by him, then and there made an assault upon plaintiff with a pistol loaded with gunpowder and leaden ball, and shot and discharged such pistol at plaintiff, by which he inflicted upon plaintiff a serious wound, causing great suffering and pain.

The second count is substantially like the first, except it contains an additional averment--that the injury to plaintiff was in “consequence of intoxication,” caused by intoxicating liquors drank by Koffman, and which had been sold to him by defendants.

A general demurrer was interposed to both counts of the declaration, which was sustained as to the first, but overruled as to the second count.

On application of defendants the venue was changed to Lee county, where a trial was had which resulted in a verdict for defendants. Plaintiff brings the cause to this court on appeal.

Mr. B. H. TRUSDELL, for the appellant.

Mr. J. V. EUSTACE, for the appellees.

Mr. JUSTICE SCOTT delivered the opinion of the Court:

The decision of this case involves the construction of the 9th section of the act entitled “Dram Shops.” The first count of the declaration, to which a demurrer was sustained, was framed with a view to recover for personal injuries, under that clause of the section which provides that any person “who shall be injured in his person * * * by any intoxicated person * * * shall have a right of action in his or her own name, severally or jointly against any person or persons who shall, by selling or giving intoxicating liquors, have caused the intoxication, in whole or in part, of such person or persons.” It will be observed the other clause of the section gives the right of action to any one who may be injured in like manner “in consequence” of the intoxication, habitual or otherwise, of any person.

With the wisdom of this statute we have nothing to do. Our duty is to declare its meaning as plainly expressed. Construction can hardly make it plainer than it is. A cause of action is given to any one who may be injured in his person or property, or means of support, by any intoxicated person, jointly or severally against such person or persons who may have caused the intoxication, in whole or in part, of the person who commits the injury. An action is also given to any one who may in the same manner be injured “in consequence” of the intoxication of any one, whether habitual or otherwise, against the parties who may cause such intoxication. In the one case it is for the...