Legal Opinion

Martin v. Fisher

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided March 27, 1906No. Docket No. 71PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Error to Van Burén; Carr, J. Case by Bertha Martin against George W. Fisher, ;a druggist, and. Judson J. Moses and Andrew A. Baxter, his bondsmen, under the civil-damage act. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error.

1Opinion of the CourtMcAlvay, J.

Defendant Fisher, a druggist in the village of Lawrence, Van Burén county, was principal and his codefendants were sureties on a druggist’s bond. Van. Burén county is a local option county. Plaintiff sued defendants on this bond, averring that defendant Fisher unlawfully sold intoxicating liquor to her husband, and that as a result she lost her means of support, and suffered shame and disgrace. The alleged sales occurred October 31, 1903. On the evening of this day, after drinking the beer procured during the afternoon and evening, plaintiff’s husband, with others, went to the house of a man…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Weiser v. WelchMichigan Supreme Court · 1897
  2. Dennison v. Van WormerMichigan Supreme Court · 1895

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Layton v. Cregan Mallory Co., Inc.Michigan Supreme Court · 1934
  2. Wilson v. Detroit United RailwayMichigan Supreme Court · 1919
  3. Kujawski v. Boyne Mountain Lodge, Inc.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1966
  4. Barnaby v. VorauerMichigan Supreme Court · 1920
  5. Toutloff v. KingMichigan Supreme Court · 1942

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

Powered by the Exa API