Legal Opinion

Van Alstine v. Kaniecki

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided May 19, 1896PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Error to Alpena; Kelley, J. Case by Marilla Van. Alstine against Philip Kaniecki, a saloonist, and Patrick Culligan and Dennis J. Roach, his bondsmen, under the civil-damage act. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtMoore, J.

Plaintiff brought suit against Kaniecki, a saloon keeper, and his bondsmen, under the provisions of Act No. 313 of the Public Acts of 1887.

Her declaration, in substance, was that defendant Kaniecki was in the saloon business, and the other defendants are his bondsmen; that Kaniecki sold to her son Lambert, who was intoxicated, and in the habit of getting intoxicated, intoxicating liquors, which he drank, and which increased his intoxication, and, while thus intoxicated, her son, on account of his intoxication, was unable to control his team, and they ran away, throwing him from his wagon, and…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Brooks v. CookMichigan Supreme Court · 1880
  2. Clinton v. LaningMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
  3. Thomas v. DansbyMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
  4. Kehrig v. PetersMichigan Supreme Court · 1879
  5. Rounsavell v. PeaseWisconsin Supreme Court · 1878

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Beunk v. Valley City Desk Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1901
  2. McNetton v. HerbMichigan Supreme Court · 1909

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

Powered by the Exa API