Sexson v. Kelley
Nebraska Supreme Court
This was a petition in error to reverse the judgment of the district court for Lancaster county. ' The facts are fully set forth in the opimon of the court. stated the case and contended: I. The bond runs to the city of Lincoln and not to the county of Lancaster as the statute requires, and it is only upon the statutory bond that an action like the plaintiff’s can be brought. II.
Read the full summary
This was a petition in error to reverse the judgment of the district court for Lancaster county. ' The facts are fully set forth in the opimon of the court. stated the case and contended: I. The bond runs to the city of Lincoln and not to the county of Lancaster as the statute requires, and it is only upon the statutory bond that an action like the plaintiff’s can be brought. II. The bond is not conditioned to pay all damages which may be adjudged against the obligees, and therefore it does not appear from the petition that the condition of the bond is broken. III. A party suing at law on a…
1Opinion of the CourtGantt, J.
The defendants, Kelley and Noonan, obtained a license from the authorities of the City of Lincoln to sell malt, vinous, and spirituous liquors, for one year from June 6, 1871. The plaintiff, the wife of James Sexson, brought this action, on the bond, against these defendants, and Eahey, their surety, to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by reason of Kelly and Noonan selling intoxicating liquors to her husband — making him drunk.
The defendants demurred to the petition on the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause *106of action. The court sustained the…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Lancaster County v. GreenNebraska Supreme Court · 1898
- State ex rel. McMonies v. McMoniesNebraska Supreme Court · 1906
- Uldrich v. GilmoreNebraska Supreme Court · 1892
- Carman v. ClydeNebraska Supreme Court · 1908
- In re WatsonDistrict Court, D. Vermont · 1882