RAWLINGS, Justice.
Plaintiffs instituted a dram shop action under The Code 1966, chapter 123 (Iowa Liquor Control Act) against defendants, liquor suppliers and surety on their bond. From trial court order overruling defendant surety’s motion to dismiss as to it this appeal is permissibly taken. We reverse.
To the extent here relevant plaintiffs, by their six division petition, seek redress from defendants as liquor licensees and permittees (licensees). Also made a party defendant is Merchants Mutual Bonding Company (Merchants), surety on the statutory bond posted by said licensees.
Defendant Merchants, in its motion to dismiss, asserts it appears to a certainty plaintiff has failed to state a claim on which any relief may be granted under any statement of facts which could he proved in support of his action brought pursuant to provisions of The Code, 1966, chapter 123 as amended.
In resistance to said motion plaintiffs contend Code § 613.1 instantly affords an avenue of relief under the pari materia rule.
I. It must be inceptionally conceded this is an action not recognized at common law, being foundationed on statutory authority alone. See Williams v. Klemesrud, 197 N. W.2d 614, 616 (Iowa 1972); Wendelin v. Russell, 259 Iowa 1152, 1158, 147 N.W.2d 188 (1966) and citations; 45 Am.Jur.2d, Intoxicating Liquors, § 553; 48 C.J.S. Intoxicating Liquors §§ 430-432.
II. The accident upon which plaintiffs’ case is predicated occurred June 23, 1970. Thus Code chapter 123, invoked by plaintiffs, is applicable and § 123.95 provides:
“Every husband, wife, child, parent, guardian, employer or other person who [132]*132shall be injured in person or property or means of support by any intoxicated person or resulting from the intoxication of any such person, shall have a right of action, severally or jointly against any licensee or permittee who shall sell or give any beer or intoxicating liquor to any such person while he is intoxicated, or serve any such person to a point where such person is intoxicated for all damages actually sustained. (Emphasis supplied).
“Every liquor control licensee shall furnish proof of financial responsibility either by the existence of a liability insurance policy or by posting bond in such amount as determined by the commission.”
We are satisfied this Act, as it relates to parties against whom the instant action can be brought is so clear, complete and free from ambiguity as to preclude any judicial construction. See Iowa R. Civ.P. 344(f) (13); State v. Hocker, 201 N.W.2d 74 (Iowa 1972); McKillip v. Zimmerman, 191 N.W.2d 706, 709 (Iowa 1971); State Ex Rel. Turner v. Koscot Interplanetary, Inc., 191 N.W.2d 624, 631 (Iowa 1971); Davenport Water Co. v. Iowa State Commerce Com’n, 190 N.W.2d 583, 594-595 (Iowa 1971); Estate of Brauch v. Beeck, 181 N.W.2d 132, 134 (Iowa 1970); State v. Valeu, 257 Iowa 867, 869-870, 134 N.W.2d 911 (1965).
As aforesaid, however, plaintiffs urge § 123.95 must be construed with other statutes in pari materia, citing § 613.1. By this argument plaintiffs merely seek to invoke a specific rule of statutory construction which, as denoted above, is inapplicable when the statute is clear, complete and free from ambiguity.
As concisely stated in 82 C.J.S. Statutes § 366b, at 813:
“The general rule that the meaning of a statute may be determined from its construction in connection with other statutes in pari materia is not one of universal application, but is resorted to only in search of legislative intent; and the rule cannot be invoked where the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous.”
See also General Electric Co. v. Southern Construction Co., 383 F.2d 135, 138 (5th Cir. 1967), cert. den. 390 U.S. 955, 88 S.Ct. 1049, 19 L.Ed.2d 1148; Rabon v. South Carolina State Highway Dept., 258 S.C. 154, 187 S.E.2d 652, 654 (1972); 2 Sutherland, Statutory Construction, § 5201, n. 1 at 529 (3d ed., Horack, 1943); 50 Am.Jur., Statutes, § 348 at 345.
If the General Assembly, in enacting § 123.95, had meant that actions such as this be brought against licensees or permittees and their surety it could easily have so provided. This it did not do. See Hartman v. Roberts-Walby Enterprises, Incorporated, 17 Mich.App. 724, 170 N.W. 2d 292, 293-294 (1969).
It is evident the legislature intended any action such as is here before us be brought only against an offending licensee or per-mittee. The Act says what it means and means what it says. See Williams v. Klemesrud, 197 N.W.2d at 616.
Furthermore, plaintiffs neither contend nor could they plausibly urge that Merchants is a licensee or permittee under Code chapter 123.
III. Since plaintiffs lean heavily on Curtis v. Michaelson, 206 Iowa 111, 219 N.W. 49 (1928), in support of their position, we find it appropriate to here distinguish that case.
Curtis initially brought action in tort against Michaelson for damages occasioned as a result of being struck by a defendant operated public motor bus. Michaelson had, however, left the state after disposing of his property so that service of process could not be had upon him in this jurisdiction. The petition was then amended to join Michaelson’s liability insurer under The Code 1927, § 5105-a26, which provided, the “insurance bond shall bind the [133]*133obligors thereunder to make compensation for injuries to persons * * * resulting from the operation of such motor carrier.” Defendant insurer demurred on the ground no liability accrued as to it until judgment was granted against its assured. Trial court sustained the demurrer and appeal followed. This court, in reversing, held that under these peculiar circumstances the injured party plaintiff could sue directly the tort feasor’s insurance carrier.
We find Curtis neither persuasive nor controlling on the issue now before us. In the first place, Curtis dealt with The Code 1927, § 5105-a26, a statute which implemented the common law. Distinguishably, in the case at bar, we deal as aforesaid with a statute creating a cause of action unknown to common law. Furthermore, the holding in Curtis was limited to an absconding tort feasor situation, not instantly involved. That holding was later recognized by legislative enactment1 and subsequently accorded judicial confirmation.2 Finally on this subject Curtis dealt with a statute so general in terms as to invite judicial construction, instantly precluded for reasons heretofore stated.
IV.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
RAWLINGS, Justice.
Plaintiffs instituted a dram shop action under The Code 1966, chapter 123 (Iowa Liquor Control Act) against defendants, liquor suppliers and surety on their bond. From trial court order overruling defendant surety’s motion to dismiss as to it this appeal is permissibly taken. We reverse.
To the extent here relevant plaintiffs, by their six division petition, seek redress from defendants as liquor licensees and permittees (licensees). Also made a party defendant is Merchants Mutual Bonding Company (Merchants), surety on the statutory bond posted by said licensees.
Defendant Merchants, in its motion to dismiss, asserts it appears to a certainty plaintiff has failed to state a claim on which any relief may be granted under any statement of facts which could he proved in support of his action brought pursuant to provisions of The Code, 1966, chapter 123 as amended.
In resistance to said motion plaintiffs contend Code § 613.1 instantly affords an avenue of relief under the pari materia rule.
I. It must be inceptionally conceded this is an action not recognized at common law, being foundationed on statutory authority alone. See Williams v. Klemesrud, 197 N. W.2d 614, 616 (Iowa 1972); Wendelin v. Russell, 259 Iowa 1152, 1158, 147 N.W.2d 188 (1966) and citations; 45 Am.Jur.2d, Intoxicating Liquors, § 553; 48 C.J.S. Intoxicating Liquors §§ 430-432.
II. The accident upon which plaintiffs’ case is predicated occurred June 23, 1970. Thus Code chapter 123, invoked by plaintiffs, is applicable and § 123.95 provides:
“Every husband, wife, child, parent, guardian, employer or other person who [132]*132shall be injured in person or property or means of support by any intoxicated person or resulting from the intoxication of any such person, shall have a right of action, severally or jointly against any licensee or permittee who shall sell or give any beer or intoxicating liquor to any such person while he is intoxicated, or serve any such person to a point where such person is intoxicated for all damages actually sustained. (Emphasis supplied).
“Every liquor control licensee shall furnish proof of financial responsibility either by the existence of a liability insurance policy or by posting bond in such amount as determined by the commission.”
We are satisfied this Act, as it relates to parties against whom the instant action can be brought is so clear, complete and free from ambiguity as to preclude any judicial construction. See Iowa R. Civ.P. 344(f) (13); State v. Hocker, 201 N.W.2d 74 (Iowa 1972); McKillip v. Zimmerman, 191 N.W.2d 706, 709 (Iowa 1971); State Ex Rel. Turner v. Koscot Interplanetary, Inc., 191 N.W.2d 624, 631 (Iowa 1971); Davenport Water Co. v. Iowa State Commerce Com’n, 190 N.W.2d 583, 594-595 (Iowa 1971); Estate of Brauch v. Beeck, 181 N.W.2d 132, 134 (Iowa 1970); State v. Valeu, 257 Iowa 867, 869-870, 134 N.W.2d 911 (1965).
As aforesaid, however, plaintiffs urge § 123.95 must be construed with other statutes in pari materia, citing § 613.1. By this argument plaintiffs merely seek to invoke a specific rule of statutory construction which, as denoted above, is inapplicable when the statute is clear, complete and free from ambiguity.
As concisely stated in 82 C.J.S. Statutes § 366b, at 813:
“The general rule that the meaning of a statute may be determined from its construction in connection with other statutes in pari materia is not one of universal application, but is resorted to only in search of legislative intent; and the rule cannot be invoked where the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous.”
See also General Electric Co. v. Southern Construction Co., 383 F.2d 135, 138 (5th Cir. 1967), cert. den. 390 U.S. 955, 88 S.Ct. 1049, 19 L.Ed.2d 1148; Rabon v. South Carolina State Highway Dept., 258 S.C. 154, 187 S.E.2d 652, 654 (1972); 2 Sutherland, Statutory Construction, § 5201, n. 1 at 529 (3d ed., Horack, 1943); 50 Am.Jur., Statutes, § 348 at 345.
If the General Assembly, in enacting § 123.95, had meant that actions such as this be brought against licensees or permittees and their surety it could easily have so provided. This it did not do. See Hartman v. Roberts-Walby Enterprises, Incorporated, 17 Mich.App. 724, 170 N.W. 2d 292, 293-294 (1969).
It is evident the legislature intended any action such as is here before us be brought only against an offending licensee or per-mittee. The Act says what it means and means what it says. See Williams v. Klemesrud, 197 N.W.2d at 616.
Furthermore, plaintiffs neither contend nor could they plausibly urge that Merchants is a licensee or permittee under Code chapter 123.
III. Since plaintiffs lean heavily on Curtis v. Michaelson, 206 Iowa 111, 219 N.W. 49 (1928), in support of their position, we find it appropriate to here distinguish that case.
Curtis initially brought action in tort against Michaelson for damages occasioned as a result of being struck by a defendant operated public motor bus. Michaelson had, however, left the state after disposing of his property so that service of process could not be had upon him in this jurisdiction. The petition was then amended to join Michaelson’s liability insurer under The Code 1927, § 5105-a26, which provided, the “insurance bond shall bind the [133]*133obligors thereunder to make compensation for injuries to persons * * * resulting from the operation of such motor carrier.” Defendant insurer demurred on the ground no liability accrued as to it until judgment was granted against its assured. Trial court sustained the demurrer and appeal followed. This court, in reversing, held that under these peculiar circumstances the injured party plaintiff could sue directly the tort feasor’s insurance carrier.
We find Curtis neither persuasive nor controlling on the issue now before us. In the first place, Curtis dealt with The Code 1927, § 5105-a26, a statute which implemented the common law. Distinguishably, in the case at bar, we deal as aforesaid with a statute creating a cause of action unknown to common law. Furthermore, the holding in Curtis was limited to an absconding tort feasor situation, not instantly involved. That holding was later recognized by legislative enactment1 and subsequently accorded judicial confirmation.2 Finally on this subject Curtis dealt with a statute so general in terms as to invite judicial construction, instantly precluded for reasons heretofore stated.
IV. As aforesaid, plaintiffs’ action against Merchants is statutorily founda-tioned and this court is accordingly restricted. Stated otherwise, Merchants is made a party defendant upon the bare allegation it is surety on a bond posted by it on behalf of licensee pursuant to Code chapter 123, the conditions of that bond being unknown. We therefore express no view as to the result had plaintiff sought redress from Merchants predicated upon terms of the bond and correspondent obligations, if any, on the part of Merchants to plaintiffs.
V. Mindful of the foregoing we now hold, plaintiffs could not be instantly accorded any relief sought as against Merchants. See Iowa R.Civ.P. 104(b); In jre Lone Tree Com. School Dist. of Johnson & Louisa, 159 N.W.2d 522, 525 (Iowa 1968). In light of the foregoing, if Knott v. Peterson, 125 Iowa 404, 101 N.W. 173 (1904) be deemed in conflict with the result instantly reached it is, to that extent, hereby overruled.
The motion to dismiss filed by defendant Merchants Mutual Bonding Company should have been sustained.
Reversed.
MOORE, C. J., and MASON, Le-GRAND and REES, JJ., concur.
UHLENHOPP, REYNOLDSON, HARRIS and McCORMICK, JJ., dissent.