Binswanger v. Stanford
BINSWANGER Et Al. v. STANFORD Et Al.
Syllabus
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
WIELIAMS, J.
From the facts as uleaded and admitted in the demurrer, it appears that the defendants in error, Muño and. Bowes, prior to the erection of the state, were licensed as retail *430 liquor dealers, at Clinton, Oklahoma Territory, but that the defendant in error, Jeff Stanford, though not such licensee, with them as a silent member of such firm, conducted such retail liquor establishment. Under such license said Muño and Bowes were authorized to retail liquor, but said Stanford was not.
The plaintiffs having sold such liquors to the defendants for the purpose of being retailed, with the evident knowledge that such liquors would be sold contrary to law, the contract being against public policy, no recovery could be had thereon. Therefore the separate demurrer of each of the defendants was properly sustained.
Stanard v. Sampson et ux., 23 Okla. 13 , 99 Pac. 796 ;
Citizens National Bank of Chickasha v. Mitchell et al., 24 Okla. 488 , 103 Pac. 720 ;
Ruemmeli v. Cravens, 13 Okla. 342 , 74 Pac. 908 ;
Bass v. Smith et al., 12 Okla. 485 , 71 Pac. 628 ;
Garst v. Love et al., 6 Okla. 46 , 55 Pac. 19 ;
Kelly v. Courter et al., 1 Okla. 277 , 30 Pac. 372 ;
Bowman et al. v. Phillips et al., 41 Kan. 364 . 21 Pac. 230 , 3 L. R. A. 631, 13 Am. St. Rep. 292 .
The judgment of the lower court is affirmed.
All the Justices concur.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 4 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.