Woody v. Coenan
Headnotes
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
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Adams, J.
The only question in this case is as to the right to recover for injuries resulting from the sale of beer, prior to September 1st, 1873. As the right to recover for injuries from the sale of intoxicating liquor, given by the statute of 1862, was allowed only where intoxicating liquor was sold “ contrary to the provisions of the act entitled ‘An Act for the Suppression of Intemperance,’ passed January 22, 1855,. or under the act entitled ‘An Act Supplementary and Amendatory to An Act for the Suppression of Intemperance,’ passed January 28, 1857,” and as neither of those acts prohibited the salé of beer when the act of 1862 was passed (although the act of 1855 did prohibit it before it was amended), we think that; under the said act of 1862, no right was given to recover for injuries from the sale of beer.
The District Court so held, and there being no evidence of the sale of liquor to plaintiff’s husband, other than beer, prior to September. 1st, 1873, we think that judgment was properly rendered for defendant.
Affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
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.