Kreiter v. Nichols
| Decision Date | 13 January 1874 |
| Citation | 28 Mich. 496 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | Francis Kreiter v. Diana Nichols |
Submitted on Briefs January 7, 1874
Error to Hillsdale Circuit.
Action under the Civil Damage Law. Defendant brings error. Reversed.
Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered.
L. N Keating and C. A. Stacy, for plaintiff in error.
E. L Koon and A. Dickerman, for defendant in error.
Christiancy, J., did not sit in this case.
The defendant in error is the wife of Matthew Nichols and brought suit in the court below to recover of Kreiter the damages sustained by her in being injured in her means of support through the intoxication of her husband, induced by liquors which she alleged Kreiter had furnished him. The suit was brought under an amendment of the prohibitory liquor law, so-called, which was adopted April 18, 1871 (Laws 1871, Vol. 1, p. 363), and which expressly provides that "every wife, child, parent, guardian, husband or other person, who shall be injured in person, property, means of support or otherwise, by any intoxicated person, or by reason of the intoxication of any person, shall have a right of action in his or her own name against any person or persons who shall, by selling or giving away any intoxicating liquor or otherwise, have caused or contributed to the intoxication of such person or persons; and in any such action the plaintiff shall have a right to recover actual and exemplary damages." The jury awarded the plaintiff five hundred and twenty-five dollars, which we infer was intended to include, not only the actual damages proved, but exemplary damages also.
The evidence tended to show, however, that the intoxicating drinks were not furnished to Nichols by the defendant in person,--at least, as a general thing,--and he called witnesses to prove that he refused to let Nichols have such drinks, and instructed his servants to do the same, which they did. It appeared, however, that defendant kept a grocery store, at which liquors were sold, and that he was also a brewer of lager beer; and it was not disputed that Nichols procured liquor at the store and beer at the brewery on some occasions.
The circuit judge charged the jury that if Nichols drank beer at the brewery without the knowledge or consent of defendant, this would not be such a selling by defendant as would render him liable under the statute.
But he also charged in substance, that defendant would be liable for the sales made to Nichols by the servants of defendant, even though in violation of his orders, and that if Nichols got beer at the brewery without the knowledge of defendant at the time, but defendant, when he found it out, charged it to Nichols and deducted it from his wages, the defendant would be liable as though he had made the sale originally.
The proposition that one engaged in the sale of intoxicating drinks shall be held responsible for the acts of his servants in that business, even though in the particular transaction they disobeyed his instructions, is in strict accord with the general rules governing the relation of master and servant, and was correctly applied in the present case. No man can be excused from responding for the negligent conduct of his servant because of having instructed him to be careful, or for his frauds because of having told him to be honest. While he is not liable for wrongs which the servant may step aside from his employment to commit, he is fully responsible for the manner in which his business is conducted, and if he gives proper directions he must take upon himself the risk of their being obeyed. But we do not perceive that any such principle can be applied to the case of a person who goes without the permission of any one and drinks another's beer, nor how the fact of the owner demanding and receiving pay for the property can make such owner a wrong-doer in the original trespass on his rights.
By the statute law of this State, as well as the common law, beer is recognized as property, and the brewing of beer is a lawful business. The law protects this property precisely as it protects any other lawful product. If one steals it from the owner, he is punished for it; if he converts it to his own use in any form, a civil action will lie to recover from him the value. And this civil action would not depend in any degree upon the method or purpose of the conversion....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Duncan v. Beres
...(1890), 82 Mich. 503, 505, 46 N.W. 723; Dice v. Sherberneau (1908), 152 Mich. 601, 606, 116 N.W. 416, 16 L.R.A.,N.S., 765; Kreiter v. Nichols (1874), 28 Mich. 496, 497; In re Miller's Estate (1910), 160 Mich. 309, 317, 125 N.W. 2; Jones v. Bourrie (1963), 369 Mich. 473, 476, 120 N.W.2d 236;......
-
LaGuire v. Kain
...Control Act, 1933 (Ex Sess) P.A. 8, as amended by 1986 P.A. 176, M.C.L. Sec. 436.22 et seq.; M.S.A. Sec. 18.993 et seq.5 See, e.g., Kreiter v. Nichols, 28 Mich. 496 (1874); Kehrig v. Peters, 41 Mich. 475, 2 N.W. 801 (1879); Steele v. Thompson, 43 Mich. 594, 4 N.W. 536 (1880).6 In fact, the ......
-
Pegram v. Stortz
... ... 28; ... Becker v. Dupree , ... 75 Ill ... 167; Drohn v. Brewer , 77 Ill. 280; ... Foote v. Nichols , 28 Ill. 486; ... Railroad Co. v. Fears , 53 ... Ill. 115; Freese v. Tripp , 70 Ill ... 496; Meidel v. Anthis , 71 Ill ... of authority, as well as reason. Thus the syllabus in [31 ... W.Va. 345] Kreiter v. Nichols , 28 ... Mich. 496, is: "Exemplary damages should not be awarded ... under the statute, [one similar to ours,] unless the act of ... ...
-
Aroma Wines & Equip., Inc. v. Columbian Distribution Servs., Inc., Docket Nos. 148907
...This Court's conversion caselaw bears out this development in the common law. Justice COOLEY 's 1874 decision for this Court in Kreiter v. Nichols involved the conversion of beer and emphasized that if someone "converts [beer] to his own use in any form, a civil action will lie to recover f......