Hayes v. Moffatt Hayes v. Moffatt

Hayes v. Moffatt

271 P. 452, 83 MONT. 185, 1928.MT.0000122

    • € 0,99
    • € 0,99

Beschrijving uitgever

Intoxicating Liquors — Retail Liquor Licenses — Powers of State Liquor Control Board — When Application for License to Be Granted — Rules and Regulations of Board to Be Limited by Provisions of Act — Construction of Statute — Writ of Supervisory Control — Issuance or Denial of Writ in Discretion of Supreme Court. Page 82 Writ of Supervisory Control — Granting or Denial of Writ in Discretion of Supreme Court. 1. The supervisory control which the supreme court has over the course of litigation in lower tribunals is not to be lightly exercised, nor, on the other hand, to be lightly denied; the propriety of its exercise through the writ of supervisory control, however, rests in the courts sound discretion. Intoxicating Liquors — State Liquor Control Board — Applications for Retail Liquor Licenses — Board Controlled by Provisions of Statute. 2. Held, on application for writ of supervisory control to annul a judgment of the district court in a proceeding in mandamus to compel the State Liquor Control Board to issue a retail liquor license for premises located outside the limits of an incorporated city or town, that where the board finds, under Chapter 84, Laws of 1937, upon investigation, that the applicant is qualified and that his premises are suitable for carrying on the liquor business and has met all the requirements of the law and the rules and regulations of the board, the board has no discretionary power to refuse the license on the ground that the inhabitants of the particular locality or neighborhood are opposed to the granting of the license for the reason that a certain class of foreigners employed on surrounding farms were susceptible to the influence of intoxicating liquors causing them to become a menace to the peace and quiet of the neighborhood, the law not having made any provision that the board should consider the attitude of residents in the vicinity toward the granting of the license. Same — Retail Liquor Licenses — Construction of Chapter 84, Laws of 1937. 3. The word "premises" as used in Chapter 84, supra, in declaring that the State Liquor Control Board shall determine whether the premises of an applicant for a retail liquor license are suitable for the carrying on of the liquor business, means the building in which it is to be carried on, and its meaning cannot be extended to include the locality or neighborhood in which the building is located. Same — State Liquor Control Board an Administrative Body — Rules and Regulations Must Conform to Provisions of Statute. 4. The State Liquor Control Board is an administrative body; it has no lawmaking power, and while it is authorized to make rules and regulations, they must be limited in their purpose and effect as an aid in the administration of the law of its creation, and any such rules and regulations calculated to widen the scope of the law and extend the boards discretionary powers to matters beyond the purview of the Act are void and of no effect. Same — Retail Liquor Licenses — Premises "Suitable" for Carrying on Business — Meaning of Term. 5. The provision of the State Liquor Control Act that the premises intended for the sale of intoxicating liquor at retail must be "suitable" for the carrying on of the business, by the use of the qualifying word "suitable" has reference to the use and purpose of the thing spoken of, i.e. the premises, and its meaning cannot be enlarged to include any other purpose. Page 83

GENRE
Professioneel en technisch
UITGEGEVEN
1928
23 oktober
TAAL
EN
Engels
LENGTE
13
Pagina's
UITGEVER
LawApp Publishers
GROOTTE
57
kB

Meer boeken van Supreme Court of Montana

St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. v. Glassing St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. v. Glassing
1994
Matter of J.S. & P.S Matter of J.S. & P.S
1994
Curtis & Vilensky v. District Court Curtis & Vilensky v. District Court
1994
Watkins v. Williams Watkins v. Williams
1994
State v. Phillips State v. Phillips
1954
Gullickson v. Mitchell Gullickson v. Mitchell
1942