Thill v. Polman

• Citation: 41 N.W. 385,76 Iowa 638
• Parties: THILL v. POLMAN ET AL.
• Decision Date: 23 January 1889
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

76 Iowa 638

41 N.W. 385

THILL

v.POLMAN ET AL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Jan. 23, 1889.

Appeal from district court, Allamakee county; C. T. GRANGER, Judge.

The plaintiff is the wife of John Thill, and this action is to recover damages for his intoxication, brought under Code Iowa, § 1557, which provides that a person injured in his means of support by the intoxication of another shall have a right of action against the person selling the liquor for all damages actually sustained, as well as exemplary damages. There was a trial to a jury, and a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendants appeal.Dayton & Dayton and M. B. Hendrick, for appellants.

Stilwell & Stewart and L. E. Fellows, for appellee.

GRANGER, J.

The only errors assigned are to the instructions given to the jury. We notice the questions in the order presented in appellants' argument.

1. Parts of the fifth and ninth instructions of the court are quoted and treated together by appellants in argument. The quotations are as follows: “(5) The law requires that a husband shall provide for his wife a reasonable support, according to her rank and station in society; and to this end she is entitled, with her husband and family, to share his property, and the proceeds of his labor.” “(9) It is not to be understood that a husband is only obligated to furnish a bare subsistence to his wife,--that is, food and clothing,--but to the extent of his ability he is under obligation to provide his wife those comforts and surroundings reasonable and necessary for home enjoyment in the society in which she lives; and the husband who has the ability, and fails to do this, fails of a legal duty.” The criticism upon these instructions is, to quote the language of appellants: “They fix the limitation of the husband, not by his resources or ability, but by the rank or standing of his wife in society.” As the two instructions are selected and placed together in aid of appellants' assignment, we may so consider them. In the ninth instruction we find that the court has, in express terms, limited the obligations of the husband to the extent of his ability. In the fifth instruction no such limitation is placed in terms, but as a proposition of law it can hardly be questioned. As a primary rule of law, we think it true that the obligations of a husband are as therein expressed.

Would the rule that a father is under obligation to maintain his children in infancy be disputed? If he could not maintain them in consequence of inability not the result of his own fault, the law might excuse him. It is not necessary, in the statement of propositions of law to a jury, to state exceptions to the rule, unless the nature of the case demands it. The record in this case discloses no necessity for such a statement. The ability of the husband for such a support when not intoxicated is not questioned. The court must frame his instructions to conform to the evidence, and not to imaginary cases. The language quoted by appellants from Rafferty v. Buckman, 46 Iowa, 201, is as follows: “It is the duty of the husband to furnish his wife with a present comfortable support and maintenance, in a manner corresponding with their circumstances and condition in life.” This instruction was approved. “Circumstances and condition in life” would certainly include their social standing. How could it be said that in fixing the obligations of a husband for the support of his wife her social position in society, which is the synonym of “rank” or “station,” should not be considered? Such is the rule in awarding alimony, and in fixing the rights of a wife for a separate support, and such cases are for the enforcement of the obligations of the husband to the wife.

The fifth instruction, when read fairly, we think, does not express an obligation beyond the husband's ability. It is that the “husband shall provide for his wife a reasonable support, according to her rank and station in society; and to that end she is entitled, with her husband and family, to share his property, and the proceeds of his labor.” The instruction means no more than that the husband shall use his property and labor for...