{
  "id": 3019542,
  "name": "Audrey Austin, by Lora Austin, Appellee, v. Nell Bass and James C. Harris, Appellants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Austin v. Bass",
  "decision_date": "1918-04-05",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "1",
  "last_page": "2",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "211 Ill. App. 1"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "206 Ill. App. 435",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5400494
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/206/0435-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 216,
    "char_count": 3059,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.54,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.719567370958748e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2961039427395188
    },
    "sha256": "8b3b76268482e6b174ef72e5a1da41dd96008dae7e7d2a0fefb72d433e3abf5e",
    "simhash": "1:48578524d4cd98d0",
    "word_count": 512
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:44:38.810297+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Audrey Austin, by Lora Austin, Appellee, v. Nell Bass and James C. Harris, Appellants."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Higbee\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Higbee"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Denison & Spiller, for appellants.",
      "No appearance for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Audrey Austin, by Lora Austin, Appellee, v. Nell Bass and James C. Harris, Appellants.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Williamson county; the Hon. W. O. Potter, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1917.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed April 5, 1918.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Audrey Austin, a minor, by her next friend, Lora Austin, plaintiff, against Nell Bass and James C. Harris, defendants, under section 9 of the Dramshop Act (J. & A. 4609), to recover damages for the death of plaintiff\u2019s father, alleged to have been caused by intoxication produced by intoxicating liquors sold and given him by defendant Bass in a dramshop operated by her in premises leased from defendant Harris. It appeared that plaintiff\u2019s father became intoxicated while drinking in such dramshop with defendant Bass, who also became intoxicated, and that she shot and killed him. From a judgment for plaintiff for $1,750, defendants appeal. The same state of facts is involved as in Austin v. Bass, 206 Ill. App. 435, which decision controls the case at bar.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Intoxicating liquors, \u00a7 189* \u2014 when landlord and saloon Keeper not liable for death of intoxicated person Killed by intoxicated saloon Keeper. In an action under section 9 of the Dram-shop Act (J. & A. f 4609) to recover damages for the death of a parent alleged to have been caused by intoxication produced by intoxicating liquors purchased in the saloon operated by one defendant in a building leased from the other defendant, there can be no recovery where the death was caused by the saloon keeper, while intoxicated, shooting and killing such parent, even though the latter was also intoxicated at the time from drinking liquor sold and given him by the saloon keeper.\n2. Intoxicating liquors, \u00a7 240 \u2014 when awarding of exemplary damages proper in action under section 9 of Dramshop Act. To recover exemplary damages in an action under section 9 of the Dramshop Act (J. & A. f 4609), it must be shown that the sale was made under aggravating circumstances on the part of the parties selling, or was wantonly or wilfully made.\n3. Intoxicating liquors, \u00a7 250* \u2014 when instruction on exemplary damages in action under section 9 of Dramshop Act is erroneous. In an action under section 9 of the Dramshop Act (J. & A. If 4609), it is error to give an instruction telling the jury that exemplary damages may be recovered by merely proving that intoxicating liquors were sold to one who became intoxicated therefrom, if the person suing was thereby injured in his means of support, without also advising them when exemplary damages may be found and ignoring the requirement that the proof show a sale under aggravating circumstances on the part of the seller or that he acted wantonly or wilfully in making it.\nDenison & Spiller, for appellants.\nNo appearance for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0001-01",
  "first_page_order": 55,
  "last_page_order": 56
}