Schober v. Rosenfield

Decision Date11 October 1888
Citation39 N.W. 706,75 Iowa 455
PartiesSCHOBER v. ROSENFIELD.
CourtIowa Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from district court, Montgomery county; A. B. THORNELL, Judge.

Action to recover the amount of payments alleged to have been made for intoxicating liquors sold in violation of law. There was a trial to a jury, and a verdict and judgment for plaintiff. The defendant J. Rosenfield appeals.C. E. Richards, S. McPherson, and W. S. Strawn, for appellant.

ROBINSON, J.

The plaintiff alleges that during the months of February, March, and April, 1887, he purchased of defendants, L. & J. Rosenfield, intoxicating liquors, for which he paid in the aggregate $98.60; and that such liquors were sold in violation of the laws of Iowa. The court directed a verdict in favor of L. Rosenfield. The amount of the verdict and judgment against J. Rosenfield was $98.60. Two questions of law are certified to this court for determination.

1. The first question is as follows: “Is an agent who sells intoxicating liquors to the purchaser, but which agent does not receive the money or purchase price, liable, at the suit of said purchaser, for the purchase price of said liquors?” This action is brought under that portion of section 1550 of the Code, which reads as follows: “All payments or compensations for intoxicating liquor sold in violation of this chapter, whether such payments or compensation be in money, goods, land, labor, or anything else whatsoever, shall be held to have been received in violation of law, and against equity and good conscience, and to have been received upon a valid promise and agreement of the receiver, in consideration of the receipt thereof, to pay, on demand, to the person furnishing such consideration, the amount of said money, or the just value of such goods, land, labor, or other thing.” It will be noticed that the consideration of the promise to repay is the receipt of the money or other thing given for the liquors, and the one who receives it is the one who is liable, by the terms of the statute, to repay it or its value. Section 1540 of the Code provides that agents who violate the provisions of law relating to intoxicating liquors “shall be charged and convicted in the same manner as principals may be, and shall be subject to the penalties herein provided.” But this refers to punishment for violation of the law. Section 1550 is designed to enable the purchaser of liquors illegally sold to recover the amount of money, or the value of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Naderhoff v. Geo. Benz & Sons
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • 16 Mayo 1913
    ... ... pleaded as a set-off or counterclaim in cases where such a ... plea would otherwise be permissible." Citing Schober ... v. Rosenfield, 75 Iowa 455, 39 N.W. 706; Friend v ... Dunks, 37 Mich. 25; Tolman v. Johnson, 43 Iowa ... 127; Roethke v. Philip Best ... ...
  • Naderhoff v. Benz
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • 16 Mayo 1913
    ...sale may also be pleaded as an offset or counterclaim in cases where such plea would otherwise be permissible”-citing Schober v. Rosenfield, 75 Iowa, 455, 39 N. W. 706;Friend v. Dunks, 37 Mich. 25;Tolman v. Johnson, 43 Iowa, 127;Roethke v. Brewing Co., 33 Mich. 340;Delahaye v. Heitkemper, 1......
  • Schober v. Rosenfield
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • 11 Octubre 1888

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT