In keeping with the language quoted, it was held that defendant was not liable. In accord with the above decisions is Sullivan v. Conrad, 79 Neb. 303 ( 112 N.W. 660), where it was held: "Under the civil damages section of our liquor law (Ann Stat § 7165), under ordinary circumstances a saloonkeeper is not liable for damages resulting from the use of intoxicating liquors, where the liquors were sold by the saloonkeeper to a third person, who thereafter furnished the liquor to the person who became intoxicated and caused the injury complained of, if it appears that the saloonkeeper had no knowledge or reason to believe that the liquors sold to the third person were to be furnished to the person who became intoxicated."
In states having statutes giving a cause of action to a wife for furnishing intoxicating liquors to the husband, thereby causing injury to her means of support, it has been held that only the one who immediately sells or furnishes such liquors to the husband is liable — not the remote seller. 33 C. J. p. 646, § 321; Harris v. Hardesty, 111 Kan. 291, 207 P. 188; Bush v. Murray, 66 Me. 472; West v. Leiphart Co. 169 Mich. 354, 135 N.W. 246; Sullivan v. Conrad, 79 Neb. 303, 112 N.W. 660; Dudley v. Parker, 132 N.Y. 386, 30 N.E. 737. In none of the statutes involved in the decisions noted is the cause of action limited to the illegal sale.