Shell Oil Co. v. Superior Court

PRESTON, J.

The petition for writ of prohibition is denied and the alternative writ is discharged.

One reasoning, briefly, is: First, that we are concerned here necessarily with questions of jurisdiction only and not with defects in pleadings, nor with difficulties, even if

[598]

well nigh insuperable, which may be encountered in proving the facts necessary to a recovery.

The action in the court below is by the wife and minor children of one Joseph C. "Wheeler, to recover from the petitioner herein actual and exemplary damages growing out of the loss of support by reason of the addiction on the part of said husband and father to the use of intoxicating liquors, brought about, it is claimed, by the unlawful acts of the petitioner herein in providing him with liquor while in its employ. Apparently, the said Wheeler was for many years a trustworthy employee of petitioner and while in such employ acquired the liquor habit to such a degree that he was discharged by petitioner.

The action is grounded upon section 20 of the so-called Volstead Act (sec. 32, title 27, U. S. Code), which purports to give certain classes of persons a right of action when they have been injured by addiction to the liquor habit of one from whom they have the right of support through, unlawful acts of others. Numerous questions are discussed but the principal one is the validity of said provision. Several instances are cited where causes of action have been sustained under this section:

Smithers

v.

Brunkhorst,

178 Wis. 530 [190 N. W. 349];

Stein

v.

Rainey,

315 Mo. 535 [286 S. W. 53];

Karterman

v.

Sogura,