Holtquist v. O'Connell
Michigan Supreme Court
’Error to Mackinac; Shepherd, J. Case by Matilda Holtquist against Daniel O’Connell and another under the civil damage act for the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors to plaintiff’s husband. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendants bring error.
1Opinion of the CourtMoore, J.
It is the claim of the plaintiff that her *486husband, while in a state of intoxication caused by drinking liquor obtained at the saloon of defendant O’Connell, after he had been forbidden to sell to Mr. Holtquist, fell into a hot pond and suffered such severe burns that he died some days later. This case was brought to recover her damages. From a judgment in her favor for $2,000, the case is brought here by writ of error.
The important errors argued are:(1) In the charge of the court to the jury;(2) That the trial judge coerced the verdict; and(3) That the court erred in refusing to grant a new…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- West v. Leiphart & Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1912
- Snowden v. Detroit & Mackinac Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1916