
    Shermerhorn v. Webber et al. (Four cases.) Lundbeck v. Wiest et al. (Nine cases.) Farley v. Palen et al. (Seven cases.)
    1. Intoxicating Liquors: nuisance: injunction. Littleton v. Frits, 65 Iowa, 488, followed.
    
      Appeals from Dubuque Gireuit Court.
    
    Friday, October 23.
    An action was brought by each of the respective plaintiffs against the respective defendants, charging each with maintaining a nuisance in keeping a saloon, and in selling intoxicating liquors therein in violation of law; and the respective plaintiffs prayed .that an injunction issue in the actions, and that the defendants be restrained from selling intoxicating liquors, and be restrained from keeping intoxicating liquors with intent to sell the same. The defendants demurred, respectively, to the petition in each case, and their demurrers, were sustained. The plaintiffs elected * to stand upon their • respective petitions, and judgment was rendered against them for costs. They appeal.
    
      8. P. Adams and Jed. Lalce, for appellants.
    
      Foulce c& Lyon and MoOeney <& O'Donnell, for appellees.
   Per Curiam.

These cases are submitted together as involving the same questions of law. The questions involved were determined in Littleton v. Fritz, 65 Iowa, 488. Following the decision in that case, we have to say that we think the court erred in sustaining the demurrer, and the several judgments, must be

Reversed.  