Koski v. Pakkala
| Decision Date | 23 May 1913 |
| Docket Number | 18,004 -- (152) |
| Parties | MATILDA KOSKI v. MARY PAKKALA and Another |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for St. Louis county by the widow of Jonas Koski against Mary Pakkala, as administratrix of the estate of Axel Pakkala, deceased, and the Bankers Surety Company of Cleveland, Ohio, to recover $ 2,000. Defendants demurred separately to the amended complaint. From an order overruling the demurrers, Dancer, J., defendants appealed. Affirmed.
Order affirmed.
License to sell liquor -- statutory bond.
1. The liquor dealers' bond, executed under the provisions of section 1524, R. L. 1905, and acts amendatory thereof, was intended by the legislature as security for an observance of and compliance with the liquor laws of the state, and for the benefit and protection of all persons injured or damaged in consequence of an unlawful sale of liquor by the licensee.
Action by person injured.
2. Though the bond is executed to the state, injured persons may prosecute an action thereon in their own name for damages suffered by them for a violation thereof.
Action is upon breach of contract.
3. The bond constitutes a contract between the licensee and his surety on the one hand, and the state and all persons injured in consequence of a violation thereof on the other; and though a breach thereof, by an unlawful sale of liquor by the licensee, necessarily constitutes a tort, the action for damages resulting from such sale is upon the contract, and not for the tort; the tort is but evidence of the breach of the contract.
Action after death of licensee.
4. The cause of action for such breach of contract survives the death of the licensee and the action may be prosecuted against his estate.
O. J Larson, John Saari and Spencer & Marshall, for appellants.
R. J Montague, for respondent.
The complaint alleges, in substance, the following facts: Defendant's intestate, Axel Pakkala, was a licensed saloon keeper in the city of Virginia, this state. Preceding the issuance of his license, and in compliance with the requirements of the statutes in such cases provided, Pakkala, as principal, and defendant, Bankers Surety Company, a corporation, as surety, duly executed and caused to be filed in the office of the city clerk the saloon bond required by section 1524, R. L. 1905, chapter 246, p. 379, Laws 1905, and it was accepted and approved by the proper city authorities. The license so issued covered the period from September 3, 1911, to September 3, 1912. During the night of December 23, and until about four o'clock in the morning of December 24, 1911, Pakkala kept his saloon and place of business open and therein sold intoxicating liquor to numerous persons there present, including one Drexler, to such an extent that said Drexler became badly intoxicated and at about four o'clock in the morning of said December 24, Drexler, in a "drunken, crazed condition, caused by the intoxicating liquor" furnished him by said Pakkala, drew a revolver from his pocket and commenced shooting the same indiscriminately about the saloon, and thus shot and killed one Jonas Koski, the husband of plaintiff.
The complaint further alleges that Drexler was an intemperate person, and that the sale of the liquor to him by Pakkala, as already stated, was a violation of law, and a breach of the conditions of the saloon bond; that such violation of the law was the cause of Drexler's intoxication, the cause of the indiscriminate shooting of his revolver, and the direct and proximate cause of the death of plaintiff's husband. A copy of the saloon bond was attached to and made a part of the complaint. Subsequent to the death of plaintiff's said husband, Pakkala died, and defendant Mary Pakkala was duly commissioned administratrix of his estate. Plaintiff claims that, by the wrongful death of her husband, she has been injured in the means of her support, and she demands judgment against both defendants for the sum of $ 2,000, the penalty of the saloon bond. Leave to sue upon the bond was obtained.
Defendants interposed separate general demurrers to the complaint, and joined in an appeal from an order overruling the same. We are of opinion and so hold, that the complaint states a cause of action against both defendants and that the demurrers were properly overruled.
1. The pertinent statutes in force at the time the license in question was granted are chapter 246, p. 379, Laws 1905, and chapter 175, p. 221, Laws 1911. The former provides for and requires the execution of a bond by the licensee conditioned for the faithful observance of and compliance with all laws regulating the sale of intoxicating liquors. And, further, that:
The act of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial