Starr v. Blatner

• Decision Date: 21 December 1888
• Citation: 41 N.W. 41,76 Iowa 356
• Parties: STARR v. BLATNER et al
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

41 N.W. 41

76 Iowa 356

STARR v. BLATNER et al

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

December 21, 1888

Decided October, 1888

Appeal from Marion District Court.--HON. O. B. AYRES, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Winslow & Varnum, for appellants.

Hays Bros., for the appellee.

OPINION

ROBINSON, J.

The petition of plaintiff shows that on the fifteenth day of January, 1887, the defendant S. L. Crook applied to the board of supervisors of Marion county for a permit to sell intoxicating liquors in the town of Dunreath, for mechanical culinary and sacramental purposes. To obtain such permit a bond was given and approved, of which the following is a copy: "Know all men by these presents that I, S. L Crook, * * * as principal, and G. M. Blatner, W. H. George and J. D. Norris, * * * as sureties, are held and firmly bound unto the county of Marion, in the state of Iowa, for the use of the school fund, in the penal sum of three thousand dollars, for the payment of which, well and truly to be made, we jointly and severally bind ourselves and our lawful representatives. The condition of the above bond is that whereas, the said S. L. Crook has made application to the board of supervisors of Marion county, Iowa, at the January term of said board in the year 1887, for a permit to sell and buy intoxicating liquors within the town of Dunreath, block 8, lot 15, in said county for mechanical, culinary and sacramental purposes only. Now, therefore, if, upon the granting of said permit for the time provided by law, the said S. L. Crook shall faithfully carry out the provisions of all laws now or hereafter in force, relating to the sale of intoxicating liquors, then this bond to be void; otherwise in full force and effect." (Signed.) The petition further alleges that a permit was duly issued, and in each of sixty-four counts charges a sale of intoxicating liquor to a person in the habit of becoming intoxicated, or to a minor, in violation of law. A separate judgment for one hundred dollars is demanded on each count. The appellants, in one division of their answer, allege that the italicized portions of the bond were inserted therein after they had executed it, and without their knowledge or consent. A demurrer to this division of the answer was sustained. The cause was tried on the issues raised by the other portions of the answer, and a verdict returned in favor of plaintiff on nineteen counts. Judgment was rendered against the defendants for the sum of nineteen hundred dollars.

The chief question presented to us by the appeal is stated by counsel for appellants as follows: "Are the alleged alterations in the bond, or either of them, material, and because of them, or either of them, are the defendant sureties discharged?" It is insisted on behalf of appellants that the alterations were material, and gave to the bond a different...