Legal Opinion

Thomas v. Dansby

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided April 12, 1889PublishedCited by 22 opinions

Error to Van Burén. (Buck, J.) Case under civil damage act. Defendants bring error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtLong, J.

This action is brought by plaintiff, who is a married woman, against William H. Dansby, as principal, and Amos Deming and James Bennett, as sureties on his bond, under the civil damage act of 1883. Plaintiff had verdict and judgment on the trial in the court below for $200. Defendants bring error.

The declaration alleges substantially that on March 29, 188'/', the defendant Dansby was engaged in the business of selling at retail intoxicating liquors, and that Deming and Bennett were sureties on his bond; that while so engaged and on that day defendant Dansby sold liquor to Frank Thomas, the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Brockway v. PattersonMichigan Supreme Court · 1888
  2. Flynn v. FogartyIllinois Supreme Court · 1883
  3. Larzelere v. KirchgessnerMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
  4. Huggins v. KavanaghSupreme Court of Iowa · 1879

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. LaBlue v. SpeckerMichigan Supreme Court · 1960
  2. Scholten v. RhoadesMichigan Court of Appeals · 1976
  3. Morton v. RothMichigan Supreme Court · 1915
  4. Eddy v. CourtrightMichigan Supreme Court · 1892
  5. Spencer v. JohnsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1915

17 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