Skip to main content
· 9/15/1875

Roth v. Eppy

Citations

  • 80 Ill. 283

Syllabus

<p>1. Pleading and evidence—variance. Contracts are entire, and must be proved substantially as alleged, but torts are divisible, and in them the plaintiff may prove a part of his charge and recover, if there be enough proved to support the tort.</p> <p>2. Although the declaration in an action by a wife against one for selling and giving liquor to her husband, may allege that the husband’s intoxication was caused in whole by the defendant, a recovery may be had where the proof shows it was caused in part only by the defendant.</p> <p>3. Statute—effect of repeal on right of action. Under the revision of 1874, no new law shall be construed to repeal a former one, whether such former one is expressly repealed or not, as to any offense committed against the former law, or as to any act done, or any right accrued or claim arising under the former law. The revision of the Liquor Law in 1874 does not take away any right of action accrued under the act of 1872 on the subject.</p> <p>4. Intoxicating liquobs—evidence in suit 6y wife. In a suit by a wife against one for causing the intoxication of her husband in whole or in part, as bearing on the question of damages, it is proper for the plaintiff to show any want of, and inability of her husband to obtain employment in consequence of his previous habits of intoxication, caused by the defendant’s acts. But proof of the husband’s desire for intoxicating liquor after his recovery from insanity, should not be admitted.</p> <p>5. Same—evidence in mitigation of damages. In such a suit, proof of the husband and wife drinking together, is proper in mitigation of exem pi ary damages, but where other proof of the same character is admitted, the exclusion of such evidence will not be a fatal error.</p> <p>6. Same.—license no defense in civil suit for damages. In a suit by a wife to recover damages for the sale of intoxicating liquors to her husband, tiie defendant’s license to sell such liquors is not admissible in evidence on the defe

Judges: Beeese, Sheldon

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.