Legal Opinion

Kehrig v. Peters

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided October 8, 1879PublishedCited by 14 opinions

Error to Wayne. Trespass on the case. Defendant brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtCampbell, C. J.

Mrs. Peters, defendant in error, sued Kekrig, who is a saloon-keeper, for damages caused by the sale of intoxicating liquors to her husband. The statute relied on is Act 231 of the laws of 1875 as amended by Act No. 193 of the laws of 1877, “to prevent the sale or delivery of intoxicating liquors, wine, and beer, to minors, and to drunken persons, and to habitual drunkards; to provide a remedy against persons selling *477liquor to husbands or children in certain eases.” Pub. L., 1875, p. 283; Pub. L., 1877, p. 212.

This statute, partially repealing the old prohibitory laws, makes certain classes…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Friend v. DunksMichigan Supreme Court · 1877
  2. Kreiter v. NicholsMichigan Supreme Court · 1874
  3. Ganssly v. PerkinsMichigan Supreme Court · 1874

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Estate of DolbeerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
  2. LaGuire v. KainMichigan Supreme Court · 1992
  3. Steele v. ThompsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1880
  4. Nowicki v. SuddethMichigan Court of Appeals · 1967
  5. Olweean v. Wayne County Road CommissionMichigan Supreme Court · 1971

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API