{
  "id": 5191789,
  "name": "John P. Keller and Bernard Sigg v. Lucy J. Lincoln",
  "name_abbreviation": "Keller v. Lincoln",
  "decision_date": "1896-11-21",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "404",
  "last_page": "405",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "67 Ill. App. 404"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "86 Ill. 106",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2770895
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/86/0106-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 216,
    "char_count": 3103,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.506,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.1561720393737241
    },
    "sha256": "cb2491511dd469c7d1f798adb116bd61f198ad228dcb76aa5a7016e2f8a58a62",
    "simhash": "1:e9dd0795174e20fd",
    "word_count": 511
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:00:34.097112+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "John P. Keller and Bernard Sigg v. Lucy J. Lincoln."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr.. Presiding Justice Boggs\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThis is an appeal from a judgment entered against appellants, jointly, in an action brought by the appellee under the dram shop act to recover damages for injuries to her property and means of support occasioned by the intoxication of her husband, caused in whole or in part by intoxicating liquors sold or given him by appellants.\nAppellants each kept a saloon, but were not partners, nor otherwise jointly interested in business. It was abundantly proven each of them sold liquor to the husband of the appellee many times in 1891, 1892, 1893 and 1894, and that he was an habitual drunkard during those years.\nIt is urged a joint judgment was wholly unwarranted\u2014 that only separate sales were proven\u2014and that it did not appear any instance of intoxication of appellee\u2019s husband resulted from the combined intoxicating influence of liquors sold or given him by the appellants. But it was proven appellee\u2019s husband became and was an habitual drunkard, and that liquors- furnished to him by the appellants, though at different times and different places, contributed to produce and continue this state of habitual intoxication, and that appellee was injured thereby.\nWhen the damages sought to be recovered are for injuries occasioned by a single temporary .fit of intoxication, to warrant a joint judgment, it is necessary it should appear, liquors sold at separate times contributed to produce the particular intoxication.-\nThe statute, however, in express terms includes injuries resulting in consequence of habitual intoxication. When damages for such injuries are sought to be recovered, all those who have furnished liquors which contributed to create or to strengthen, or keep up the habit of drunkenness, are liable both severally and jointly. Consult King v. Haley, 86 Ill. 106.\nIt is perhaps true that testimony was admitted which related to injuries to appellee\u2019s means of support, which was barred by the statute of limitations.\nThe instructions given in behalf of the appellee were so framed as to restrict the action of the jury to injuries within the statutory period, and the testimony as to injuries within that period was quite sufficient to warrant the verdict and judgment.\nWe think the verdict and judgment right up\"on the merits, and that the record is free from error, reversible in character. The judgment is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr.. Presiding Justice Boggs"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Beach & Hodnett, attorneys for appellants.",
      "S. L. Wallace and E. C. Moos, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "John P. Keller and Bernard Sigg v. Lucy J. Lincoln.\n1. Dram Shop Act\u2014Liability Under, Joint and Several.\u2014When damages for injuries caused by the sale of intoxicating liquors are sought to be recovered under the dram shop act, all those who have furnished liquors which contributed to create or to strengthen, or to keep up the habit of drunkenness, are liable both severally and jointly.\nAction, under the dram shop act. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Logan County; the Hon. George W. Herdman, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the May term, 1896.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed November 21, 1896.\nBeach & Hodnett, attorneys for appellants.\nS. L. Wallace and E. C. Moos, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0404-01",
  "first_page_order": 402,
  "last_page_order": 403
}