Cochran v. Lovelace

Majority reasons § 123.95, The Code, 1966, grants the injured person a cause of action against the licensee or permittee and, because such action is in derogation of common law, there can be no independent or co-extensive cause of action against licensee’s bondsman. Such concept of strict construction of statutes in alleged derogation of common law of course violates § 4.-2, The Code. But the fallacy in that rationale is further pinpointed by the query: then where else in the code is the injured party given recourse against the statutory bondsman ?

The necessary implication left by majority’s…