Houston v. Gran
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error from the district court of Lancaster county. Tried below before Field, J. The facts are stated in the opinion. The fact that the deceased may have left some estate which contributes to the support of his family, and the fact that some members of his family have the ability and are capable in whole or in part of supporting themselves, will not reduce but rather increase the amount the plaintiffs should recover, and an instruction by the trial court to the contrary is…
Read the full summary
Error from the district court of Lancaster county. Tried below before Field, J. The facts are stated in the opinion. The fact that the deceased may have left some estate which contributes to the support of his family, and the fact that some members of his family have the ability and are capable in whole or in part of supporting themselves, will not reduce but rather increase the amount the plaintiffs should recover, and an instruction by the trial court to the contrary is error. (Sec. 15, ch. 50, Comp. Stats.; Boose v. Perkins, 9 Neb., 313; Hackett v. Smelsley, 77 III., 120; Schneider v.…
1Opinion of the Court
Irvine, C.
Mary J. Houston, as widow, and the other plaintiffs in error, as minor children of James H. Houston, deceased, brought this action against John Gran, a saloon-keeper, and the sureties upon his bond, charging the sale of liquor by Gran to Houston, causing intoxication, in consequence of which intoxication Houston wandered upon the tracks of a railroad and was killed. There was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiffs in error for $100. Many errors are assigned, of which we shall notice only two.
• The court gave the following instruction upon the measure of damages:
“ If you should…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Gran v. HoustonNebraska Supreme Court · 1895
- McLaughlin v. United Railroads of S.F.California Supreme Court · 1915
- Young v. BeveridgeNebraska Supreme Court · 1908
- Reath v. State ex rel. JohnsonIndiana Court of Appeals · 1896