Sellers v. Arie
| Decision Date | 23 October 1896 |
| Citation | 68 N.W. 814,99 Iowa 515 |
| Parties | IDA SELLERS, v. B. ARIE, Appellant |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Boone District Court.--HON. D. R. HINDMAN, Judge.
ACTION at law to recover back money paid for intoxicating liquors sold by the defendant to plaintiff's assignors, in violation of law. There was a trial by jury, and a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. Defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Dyer & Stevens for appellant.
A. J Holmes and Jordan & Brockett for appellee.
I.
The petition is in two counts. In the first count it is alleged that defendant sold intoxicating liquors to one V. Sellers between April 1, and May 5, 1893, for which said Sellers paid to the defendant the sum of two hundred and twenty-three dollars and fifty cents, and assigned his right to recover said money back, to the plaintiff. It is averred in the second count that the partnership firm of Sellers & Coats paid the defendant the sum of one thousand, one hundred and eighty-eight dollars and fifty cents, for intoxicating liquors sold by the defendant to said firm, between the first day of June, 1893, and the fifteenth day of January, 1894 and that said firm and the individual members thereof duly assigned their right to plaintiff to recover the said money back from the defendant. It is further averred that demand was made for the re-payment of said sums of money upon the defendant before the commencement of this suit. It is alleged that all of said sales of intoxicating liquors were made in violation of law. The defendant, by his answer, denied that plaintiff was the owner of the account sued on, and denied that the assignment thereof invested plaintiff with the right to maintain an action thereon. The answer contained further averments as follows: "And, further answering, the defendant says that he was from the 1st day of April, 1893, to the 15th day of January, 1894, acting as agent of the Anheuser-Busch Brewing Company, of St. Louis, Missouri, in the city of Boone and vicinity, for the sale of beer in said corporation; that said defendant entered into a verbal contract with the assignor of plaintiff and one James Coats, who were doing business at said time under the firm name of Coats & Sellers, to sell said firm beer; and that said beer was to be sold in violation of law; and that, as a part of the essential element of said agreement to sell, the defendant agreed to protect said firm from prosecutions that might be brought for the violation of law in the sale of said beer; and that said contract was, as agreed, two dollars and fifty cents per keg, for the beer and protection as aforesaid; and that such agreement was made with said firm of Coats & Sellers, also with said Sellers and said Coats individually." It will be observed from this last part of the answer that the sales of intoxicating liquors were made in violation of law, and for the purpose of enabling the purchasers thereof to unlawfully resell the same. The jury returned a verdict against the defendant for the sum of three hundred dollars. The evidence shows beyond all question that plaintiff's assignors paid to the defendant, at least, the amount of the verdict for intoxicating liquors purchased from the defendant; and, although some question is made by the defendant whether a demand of repayment was made before suit...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Foley v. Leisy Brewing Co.
...and the question of liability in a case where the money had come into the agent's hands was expressly left undecided. In Sellers v. Arie, 99 Iowa 515, 68 N.W. 814, cited appellant, the petition charged defendant as principal. He pleaded as a defense that he was an agent, only. The testimony......
- McManus v. Hornaday
- McManus v. Hornaday
-
Foley v. Leisy Brewing Co.
...and the question of liability in a case where the money had come into the agent's hands was expressly left undecided. In Sellers v. Arie, 99 Iowa, 515, 68 N. W. 814, cited by appellant, the petition charged defendant as principal. He pleaded as a defense that he was an agent, only. The test......