Rosecrants v. Shoemaker

• Decision Date: 10 February 1886
• Citation: 26 N.W. 794,60 Mich. 4
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: ROSECRANTS v. SHOEMAKER and others.

26 N.W. 794

60 Mich. 4

ROSECRANTS v. SHOEMAKER and others.

Supreme Court of Michigan

February 10, 1886

Error to Oakland.

Baldwin, Draper & Jocokas, for plaintiff.

W.N Draper, for defendants and appellants.

CAMPBELL, C.J.

Plaintiff sued defendants for furnishing intoxicating liquor to her husband, who, as she claimed, was killed, while intoxicated by a train of cars. Among other matters, proof was given tending to show that plaintiff authorized defendants to furnish him liquor, and procured it for him herself. There was a conflict on this. There was also testimony before the jury, given by plaintiff, that when her husband was killed she was keeping house with her husband, and had four children of different ages; the oldest being 16, and the rest younger. Several errors were assigned, but on the argument there were three especially relied on, the others not being argued.

The court was asked to charge, "if the jury find that defendants were authorized by plaintiff to furnish her husband liquors, she cannot recover damages for injuries sustained by reason of defendants having furnished her husband liquor, unless he was intoxicated when such liquors were furnished." This request was absolutely refused. The court also refused the following request; stating that it was refused, except as given in the general charge. In the general charge the court stated that plaintiff denied having purchased any liquor, and insisted she had forbidden defendants to let him have it, making no reference whatever to the contrary testimony, and saying nothing as to its effect. The request was: "If the jury find that, for her husband's use, as a beverage, the plaintiff was in the habit of purchasing of defendants intoxicating liquors by the bottle, they may consider that as evidence for the purpose of determining whether she authorized him to sell her husband liquor or not." In the general charge, the jury were authorized to find both actual and exemplary damages if the defendants furnished him liquors which contributed to his intoxication, without confining them (although the court probably meant to do so) to the case of willful wrong, or giving any other caution upon it.

Under the statute of 1883, p. 215, it is expressly declared that whatever damages are recovered by a wife or child shall be the plaintiff's sole and separate property, and every person injured shall have a right of action in his or her own name. As...