State v. Lawler

• Decision Date: 24 May 1892
• Citation: 85 Iowa 564,52 N.W. 490
• Parties: STATE v. LAWLER ET AL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

85 Iowa 564

52 N.W. 490

STATE

v.LAWLER ET AL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

May 24, 1892.

Appeal from district court, Winnesheik county; W. A. HOYT, Judge.

Action to abate a liquor nuisance, and for an injunction, and asking that costs and attorneys' fees be made a lien upon the property. Court below dismissed petition as to above-named defendants. Plaintiff excepted, and appeals.J. B. Kaye, for appellant.

KINNE, J.

1. It appears that in February, 1890, Paul and Rachel Slack erected a shanty upon the lot of defendants in Decorah, Iowa, and that they sold intoxicating liquors therein during the months of February, March, and part of April, 1890. Action for an injunction and for the abatement of the nuisance was brought against the Slacks and the defendants herein, as well as against the lot. On the trial the court found against Slacks, and abated the nuisance, but refused to enjoin these defendants, or to tax any of the costs to them. The evidence shows without conflict that the shanty was built upon defendants' lot without their knowledge or consent; that they had never leased the lot to Slacks; and it does not appear that these defendants had any knowledge as to the fact that such a shanty had been erected on these lots, or that the same had been used for the illegal sale of intoxicating liquors, until after the petition in this case was filed. It is also undenied that afterwards, and before this case was tried, these defendants compelled Slacks to tear down and take away the shanty. Lawler and Doyle were both nonresidents. They had an agent living in Decorah, and he had no knowledge of the use his principals' premises were being put to until about the time the building was taken down.

2. There is no evidence in this case which would warrant us in setting aside the judgment of the trial court. Defendants, within a reasonable time after being apprised of the fact that the law was being violated by one who was a trespasser upon their premises, caused his building to be taken down and carried away. There is no evidence which would justify us in holding that defendants in any manner authorized or approved the violation of the law by Slacks. Under the circumstances, to issue an injunction against them, and tax costs and attorneys' fees to them, would be wholly unwarrantable.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.