Loan v. Hiney
| Decision Date | 17 March 1880 |
| Citation | 4 N.W. 865,53 Iowa 89 |
| Parties | LOAN v. HINEY AND ANOTHER. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Johnson district court.
This action was commenced in the circuit court to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff because of the intoxication of her husband, caused by liquor sold him by said Hiney. The plaintiff asked that the judgment be made a lien on certain real estate owned by the defendant Etzel. There was a trial by jury, verdict and judgment against Hiney, but the jury found in favor of Mrs. Etzel in respect to the lien claimed. The finding as to Mrs. Etzel was set aside. Thereupon, by consent of parties, the cause was transferred to the district court.
When the case came on for trial in said last named court, the defendent Etzel demanded a jury, which was refused, and she excepted. Thereupon, the case was set down for hearing and tried as an equitable action, and there was a decree establishing the lien. The defendant Etzel appeals.Fairall & Fairall and Bonorden & Ranck, for appellant.
Remley & Swisher, for appellee.
When this cause was before us at a former term, a majority of the court were of the opinion the defendant Etzel was not entitled to a trial by jury, but, upon further argument, we have concluded this was not correct. Our reasons, briefly stated, are as follows:
The action against Hiney was brought under section 1557 of the Code, which, in substance, provides that a wife may recover damages against one who sells her husband liquor, thereby causing him to become intoxicated, by reason of which she is injured in “person, property, or means of support.”
The action against Mrs. Etzel was grounded on section 1558 of the Code, which provides that “for all * * judgments rendered, of any kind, against any person, for any violation of the provisions of this chapter, the personal and real property * * * of such person, as well as the premises and property, personal or real, occupied and used for that purpose, with the consent and knowledge of the owner thereof, * * * by the person * * selling intoxicating liquors contrary to the provisions of this chapter, shall be liable, and all such * * judgments shall be a lien on such real estate until paid.”
That these actions were properly joined was held in La France v. Krayer, 42 Iowa, 143. It was the right of Mrs. Etzel to contest the claim against Hiney, and this being true the plaintiff properly joined her in that action, so that she would be concluded by any judgment that might be rendered against him.
The issues in the case at bar, when tried in the circuit court, were: First, did the defendant Hiney sell liquor to the plaintiff's husband, thereby causing him to become intoxicated, whereby she was injured in her person, property, or means of support? and, second, did Mrs. Etzel consent and have knowledge of such sales? As to...
To continue reading
Request your trial