Stacey v. Robbin

<p>Abstract of the Decision.</p> <p>1. Intoxicating liquors, § 228*—intoxication as proximate cause of injury from imprisonment of husband for crime committed while drunks. The intoxication of a man held, in an action under section 9 of the Dramshop Act (J. & A. If 4609) against those selling and furnishing him intoxicating liquor, to be the proximate cause of the damages sustained by his wife and children from his imprisonment for a crime committed while drunk.</p> <p>2. Intoxicating liquors, § 168*—when civil damage act strictly construed. The entire Dramshop Act must be strictly construed since it is penal in character.</p> <p>3. Intoxicating liquors, § 172*—when person may recover under civil damage act. A person seeking to recover under section 9 of the Dramshop Act (J. & A. j[ 4609) for injuries caused by the sale or furnishing of intoxicating liquors to another, must bring himself clearly within the terms of the section.</p> <p>4. Intoxicating liquors, § 202*—when declaration sufficient in action under civil damage act. A declaration in an action under section 9 of the Dramshop Act (J. & A. If 4609), which does not allege an injury to the person, property or means of support of either of the plaintiffs, does not state a cause of action.</p> <p>5. Intoxicating liquors, § 202*—when declaration sufficient in action under civil damage act against property owner. A declaration in an action under section 9 of the Dramshop Act (J. & A. If 4609) by a wife and" children against the keepers of saloons and the owners of the property where the business was conducted, to recover for injuries sustained from the sale of intoxicating liquor to a husband and father, does not state a cause of action against the property owners where it does not allege that liquor was sold or given the husband in the property or buildings owned by either of the other defendants.</p>