Legal Opinion

Bachman v. Brown

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided March 5, 1894PublishedCited by 6 opinions

Appeal from the Knox Circuit Court. — Hon. Ben. E. Tubneb, Judge.

1Opinion of the CourtBiggs, J.

— The plaintiff sues to recover the penalty provided by section 19 of the dramshop law. Session Acts, 1891, p. 128. The petition contained twenty counts, in which it was charged that the defendant, a merchant, had at various times therein stated sold intoxicants to the minor sons of the plaintiff without written permission from the plaintiff to do so. The answer of the defendant is a general denial. No-objection was made to the petition. At the conclusion of the evidence the court instructed the jury to return a verdict for the defendant, which was done, and the court entered a judgment…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. City of St. Louis v. LaughlinSupreme Court of Missouri · 1872
  2. Knox City v. ThompsonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1885

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Ex Parte RoquemoreCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1910
  2. Ex Parte MuckenfussCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1908
  3. Missouri v. HamillMissouri Court of Appeals · 1908
  4. State v. GallagherMissouri Court of Appeals · 1907
  5. Hurt v. Oak Downs, Inc.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1935

1 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