TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Sterling v. Callahan

Sterling v. Callahan, 63 N.W. 982 (Mich. 1895)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 2, 1895
Judges
Long, Other
Citations
63 N.W. 982106 Mich. 1281895 Mich. LEXIS 957
Disposition
Affirmed.
Headnotes
Intoxicating Liquors — Sale to Minor — Civil-Damage Law— Evidence — Harmless Error. In an action under 3 How. Stat. g 2283e3, for the sale of liquor to plaintiff’s minor son, any error committed in permitting a witness to testify that he had drunk with the minor at another saloon than the defendant’s is cured by an instruction that it is immaterial whether any one else than the defendant gave liquor to the minor, and that the damages to which plaintiff is entitled cannot be lessened by-reason of that fact.
Summary
Error to Wayne; Frazer, J. Case by Henry O. Sterling against Robert O. Callahan under the civil-damage act. (See 94 Mich. 536.) From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff brings error.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Long

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Long, J.

This action was brought to recover damages for the sale of intoxicating liquors to plaintiff’s minor son. The case was tried before a jury, w'ho found a verdict in favor of defendant.

One of plaintiff’s witnesses was permitted to testify on cross-examination that he had drunk with the minor at a saloon other than the defendant’s. It was claimed that this testimony was offered for the purpose of testing the recollection of the witness. Plaintiff’s contention is that the testimony was incompetent, under T heisen v. Johns, 72 Mich. 292 , and Steele v. Thompson, 42 Mich. 594 . If it be conceded that the court was in error in permitting this testimony, we think the error was cured by the charge of the court in giving one of plaintiff’s requests, which was, substantially, that it was immaterial whether any one else than defendant or his barkeeper gave beer or whisky to plaintiff’s minor son; that the damages could not be lessened merely because of any injury caused by the giving or selling of such liquor to plaintiff’s son by others than the defendant or his barkeeper. The court also stated to the jury that, if defendant or his barkeeper gave the son beer or whisky, the plaintiff was entitled to recover at least $50, under the statute, and also such other damages as the jury might find the plaintiff entitled to.

Some other questions are raised. We have’examined them, and do not deem it necessary to discuss them. The case was very fairly tried, and was submitted to the jury under a charge which was eminently fair to the plaintiff.

The judgment must be affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1898: 118982026peak 1898 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. People v. Hotchkiss76 N.W. 142 (Mich. 1898)

Most recent

  1. People v. Hotchkiss76 N.W. 142 (Mich. 1898)

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.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Theisen v. Johns, 40 N.W. 727 (Mich. 1888) 15
Steele v. Thompson, 4 N.W. 536 (Mich. 1880) 11

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list