Werner v. Edmiston
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from Sedgwick District Court. Action brought by M. C. Edmiston, (widow of M. V. Edmiston,) against Werner, to recover damages under the provisions of §§ 9 and 10 of chapter 35 of the General Statutes.
Read the full summary
Error from Sedgwick District Court. Action brought by M. C. Edmiston, (widow of M. V. Edmiston,) against Werner, to recover damages under the provisions of §§ 9 and 10 of chapter 35 of the General Statutes. The petition (omitting the title) is as follows: “The plaintiff, for a first cause of action against the defendant, says: “That for more than ten years last past, and up to the time of the death of M. V. Edmiston, as hereinafter set out, she was his wife; that at the time of such death the said M. Y. Edmiston and this plaintiff were the common parents of five children, aged respectively…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Brewer, J.:
This was an action brought under the 9th and 10th sections of the dramshop act, in which the defendant in error, plaintiff below, recovered a judgment of $2,600 against the plaintiff in error, for having caused the intoxication of her husband.
It appears from the affidavit of the bailiff, thé only testi*150mony offered on the motion for a new trial, that he was present in the jury room during the deliberations of the jury, and that the amount of the verdict was ascertained and determined solely by adding the sums named by the respective jurors,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Hackett v. SmelsleyIllinois Supreme Court · 1875
- Woolheather v. RisleySupreme Court of Iowa · 1874
- Fountain v. DraperIndiana Supreme Court · 1875
3Cited by18 opinions
- State v. BarrettSupreme Court of Kansas · 1882
- State v. SchweiterSupreme Court of Kansas · 1882
- Hamilton v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1915
- Dolezal v. BostickSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1914
- Fest v. OlsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1917
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.