{
  "id": 5187045,
  "name": "Town of City of Champaign and Pearl Ewing, Plaintiffs. Town of City of Champaign, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Overmeyer's Inc., Defendant-Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Town of City of Champaign v. Overmeyer's Inc.",
  "decision_date": "1958-08-11",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 10,179",
  "first_page": "523",
  "last_page": "527",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "18 Ill. App. 2d 523"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "122 N.E.2d 62",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "3 Ill. App.2d 358",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5129393
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/3/0358-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "87 N.E.2d 637",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "403 Ill. 493",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2620850
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/403/0493-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "144 N.E.2d 629",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "14 Ill.App.2d 418",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5172446
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/14/0418-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "133 N.E.2d 723",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "9 Ill.App.2d 545",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5151936
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/9/0545-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "79 N.E.2d 854",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "334 Ill. App. 579",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2429318
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "583"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/334/0579-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 390,
    "char_count": 6417,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.531,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.827059834213394e-08,
      "percentile": 0.533453687840488
    },
    "sha256": "85a275e3e9f81f69c44e7dd3d50d442a5ae74a25edd9ac06eee1c33e802bb7dd",
    "simhash": "1:c9eebfdf0ee55eb8",
    "word_count": 1059
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:31:45.752438+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "REYNOLDS and CARROLL, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Town of City of Champaign and Pearl Ewing, Plaintiffs. Town of City of Champaign, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Overmeyer\u2019s Inc., DefendantAppellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PRESIDING JUSTICE ROETH\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThe question involved in this appeal is a narrow and limited one. It is so conceded by both parties.\nThe plaintiff is a township. It commenced an action under the 1955 Amendment of the Dramshop Act, Ill. Rev. Stat. 1955, Chap. 43, Section 135, against the defendant dramshop keeper claiming that it was injured in its property.\nThe defendant filed a motion to dismiss, assigning as the sole and only ground for dismissal the following:\n\u201cThe Town of the City of Champaign is not a proper plaintiff within the purview of the Illinois Dramshop Act, under which this Complaint is filed.\u201d\nThe trial court sustained the motion and dismissed the complaint. Prom that order this appeal was taken.\nPlaintiff in its brief states that the issue on this appeal is a limited one and that it is whether a Township as a body politic is to be considered as a \u201cperson\u201d within the language of the 1955 Amendment of the Dramshop Act. Defendant at the outset of its brief also states that this is the sole issue. We therefore expressly limit our opinion to the sole issue as defined by the parties. \u25a0\nPrior to the adoption of the 1955 Amendment to section 135 of the Dramshop Act that section, HI. Rev. Stat:'1953, Chap. 43, provided:\n\u201cEvery husband, wife, child, parent, guardian, employer or other person, who shall be injured, in person or property, or means of support, by any intoxicated person, or in consequence of the intoxication, habitual or otherwise, of any person, shall have a right of action in his or her own name, severally or jointly, against any person or persons who shall, by selling or giving alcoholic liquor, have caused the intoxication, in whole or in part, of such person; . . . .\u201d\nIn a series of decisions, Economy Auto Ins. Co. v. Brown et al., 334 Ill. App. 579, 79 N.E.2d 854; New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. Gerin, 9 Ill.App.2d 545, 133 N.E.2d 723; and Eager et al. v. Nathan et al., 14 Ill.App.2d 418, 144 N.E.2d 629, the courts of Illinois in construing the phrase \u201cother person,\u201d applied the principle of ejusdem generis and held that the phrase meant a person of like classification as \u201chusband, wife etc.\u201d The construction was succinctly laid out in New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. Gerin, supra, where the court said:\n\u201cThere is a good basis in the principles of legislative construction for the conclusion of the Economy case. The act states that \u2018every husband, wife, child, parent, guardian, employer or other person, who shall be injured in person or property, . . . shall have a right of action. . . .\u2019 Ill. Rev. Stat. 1953, Chap. 43, Section 135. The act itself and the cases decided on the point indicate that since it is remedial the act should be given a liberal construction. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1953, Chap. 43, Section 94; Economy Auto Ins. Co. v. Brown, 334 Ill. App. 579, 583. But even under a liberal construction we cannot construe the act beyond the intent of the legislature. The well known principle of construction, ejusdem generis, precludes extension of the term \u2018other person\u2019 beyond the classes specifically enumerated. To be included, therefore, within the term \u2018other person\u2019 the injured party must he of the same general classification as a \u2018husband, wife, child, guardian or employer.\u2019 There is no indication that the legislature intended \u2018other person\u2019 to include an insurance carrier.\u201d\nThe court noted, however, as follows:\n\u201cThe Economy case was decided in 1948 and if this decision did not truly interpret the legislative intent, ample time has intervened during which the legislature could have clarified its intention by amendment.\u201d\nFollowing these decisions the Legislature in 1955 amended Sec. 135 of the Dramshop Act. It now provides :\n\u201cEvery person, who shall be injured, in person or property by any intoxicated person, shall have a right of action in his or her own name, severally or jointly, against any person or persons who shall, by selling or giving alcoholic liquor, have caused the intoxication in whole or in part, of such person; . . .\u201d\nThus it will be observed that the Legislature has eliminated the enumeration of specific classes of persons. When the Legislature revises a statute it must be presumed that the Legislature took cognizance of the prior decisions of the courts construing and interpreting the prior law. If, after a statute has been construed and interpreted, the Legislature makes radical changes in phraseology, an intention is thereby shown to establish a rule different from that announced by the courts. Where by amendment or revision, words are stricken from a statute it must be concluded that the Legislature deliberately intended to change the law. I. L. P. Statutes Par. 161; McLaughlin v. People, 403 Ill. 493, 87 N.E.2d 637; Towers v. Schull, 3 Ill. App.2d 358, 122 N.E.2d 62. We are therefore of the opinion that by the elimination of the enumeration of the specific classes of persons, the Legislature has evinced an intention to broaden the classification of an injured party.\nBy Ill. Rev. Stat. 1957, Chap. 131, Sec. 1, it is provided\n\u201cIn the construction of statutes the provisions of Sections 1.01 to 1.22, inclusive, shall be observed, unless such construction would be inconsistent with the manifest intent of the General Assembly or repugnant to the context of the statute.\u201d\nand by Section 1.05, it is provided\n\u201c \u2018Person\u2019 or \u2018persons\u2019 as well as all words referring to or importing persons, may extend and be applied to bodies politic and corporate as well as individuals.\u201d\nWe are therefore of the opinion that plaintiff as a Township and body politic comes within the 1955 Amendment as a \u201cperson\u201d and that the Circuit Court of Champaign County was in error in holding to the contrary.\nThe judgment of the Circuit Court of Champaign County is therefore reversed with directions to overrule the motion of defendant and for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.\nReversed and remanded.\nREYNOLDS and CARROLL, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PRESIDING JUSTICE ROETH"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Greaves & Harper, of Champaign, for plaintiff-appellant.",
      "Wilson, Siebert, Lynaugh & Abney, of Springfield (John P. Lynaugh, of counsel) for defendant-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Town of City of Champaign and Pearl Ewing, Plaintiffs. Town of City of Champaign, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Overmeyer\u2019s Inc., DefendantAppellee.\nGen. No. 10,179.\nThird District.\nAugust 11, 1958.\nEehearing denied October 3, 1958.\nEeleased for publication October 3, 1958.\nGreaves & Harper, of Champaign, for plaintiff-appellant.\nWilson, Siebert, Lynaugh & Abney, of Springfield (John P. Lynaugh, of counsel) for defendant-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0523-01",
  "first_page_order": 533,
  "last_page_order": 537
}