Nebraska Reports Volume 99 (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1916 edition. Excerpt: ...Bridge & Construction Co., supra, is quoted because it points out a better practice than that followed by the trial court. Complaint is made of-other instructions, phrases and paragraphs being singled out for criticism; but, when the whole charge is read together, it does not seem subject to the criticisms made. Taken as a whole, the instructions are plain, explicit, and so framed that a man of common knowledge and ordinary understanding can have no difficulty in understanding them. It is a well-settled rule that instructions are to be considered together, and if when so considered they properly state the law, they are sufficient. Appellants urge with much force and logic that the petition does not state a cause of action, and that the court erred in overruling the demurrer ore tenus. The point sought to be made is that section 3859, Rev. St. 1913, under which the action was brought, was not designed to give plaintiif a right of action against the defendants; that the party who procures liquor from a liquor dealer, becomes intoxicated, and sufiers injury, has no cause of action for the injury sustained. This section was first before the court for construction in Buckmastcr v. McElroy, 20 N eb. 557, and it was held that where the plaintifi became intoxicated on liquor furnished by a licensed dealer, and, because of his intoxication, suffered the loss of his feet, the dealer was liable. The instant case is closely analogous; but counsel undertake to show that the reasoning of the court does not sustain the opinion, which was by a divided court. Ve do not deem it necessary to supplement the reasoning in that case. That was the interpretation placed on this section of the statute at the time the defendant saloon-keepers were licensed....