Good v. Towns
Supreme Court of Vermont
Action given by E. L. s. 3833. Trial by-jury, September Term, 1882, Windham County, Bowell, J., presiding. Verdict ordered for the defendants.
Read the full summary
Action given by E. L. s. 3833. Trial by-jury, September Term, 1882, Windham County, Bowell, J., presiding. Verdict ordered for the defendants. The plaintiff offered to prove that the defendant Towns was the proprietor of a hotel in Bellows Falls ; that he kept a bar in his hotel, at which intoxicating liquor was sold, and that the defendant Sullivan tended the bar for him ; that Sullivan unlawfully sold said liquor to one Peter Good who drank such quantities of it that he died in consequence thereof. She also offered to prove that said Good was married to one Mary E. Marcy in 1854, and that…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Bowbll, J.
The first point made by the defendants is, that the statute* gives a right of action, not to one dependent for support on the intoxicated person who dies or is disabled, but to one thus dependent on the person whom the intoxicated person kills or disables; and such is the construction given to a similar statute in New Hampshire. Hollis v. Davis, 56 N. H. But in Rich*414ards v. Moore, heard at the January Term, 1882, in Eranklin County, this court held that the statute gave a right of action to one dependent on the intoxicated person, and we are…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Moncrief v. ElyNew York Supreme Court · 1838
3Cited by12 opinions
- Middleton v. Luckenbach S. S. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1934
- McDonald v. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis R'y Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1896
- Healey v. CadySupreme Court of Vermont · 1932
- Thompson v. Dewey's South Royalton, Inc.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1999
- Robinson v. Georgia Railroad & Banking Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1903
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.