Commissioners of Town of Maxton v. Robeson County Com'rs

• Decision Date: 17 November 1890
• Citation: 12 S.E. 92,107 N.C. 335
• Parties: COMMISSIONERS OF MAXTON et al. v. COMMISSIONERS OF ROBESON COUNTY.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

12 S.E. 92

107 N.C. 335

COMMISSIONERS OF MAXTON et al. v. COMMISSIONERS OF ROBESON COUNTY.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

November 17, 1890

Syllabus by the Court.

When county commissioners refuse to grant license to retail liquor, on the ground that the applicant is not a fit person a mandamus will not lie to compel the commissioners to grant it.

This was an application for a mandamus to compel the commissioners of Robeson county to grant license to retail liquor to J. T Pool and others, plaintiffs in this action, heard on demurrer to the answer by GRAVES, J. Demurrer was overruled, mandamus refused, and judgment against plaintiffs for costs. Appeal by plaintiffs.

When county commissioners refuse to grant license to retail liquor, on the ground that the applicant is not a fit person a mandamus will not lie to compel the commissioners to grant it, and it is immaterial that the voters of the town have declared themselves in favor of the granting of licenses therein, at an election held for that purpose.

T. H Sutton, for appellants.

William Black and T. A. McNeill, for appellees.

CLARK J.

In the answer it is alleged--"the defendants deny that they willfully and absolutely refused to grant license to said applicants on that or any other occasion, but that, after hearing evidence both for and against the said applicants and argument of counsel, and due consideration of the application, the defendants were of the opinion that said applicants were not fit persons to retail spirituous liquors, and, also, they further aver that on the hearing of their said applications for an order for license to retail at Maxton, in this county, on 22d August, 1890, the defendants examined witnesses, and heard testimony as to good moral character and fitness of the said applicants, as required by law, and also as to the places at which, in said town of Maxton, they proposed to conduct their traffic, and after hearing arguments of counsel, and due consideration of the evidence, they were of the opinion that the evidence was not satisfactory, and did not establish that applicants were men of good moral character, or that the places at which it was proposed to retail were suitable for that business, and denied the same. Defendants further deny that they acted willfully or arbitrarily in said matter, but proceeded on their convictions of duty in the light of evidence and the facts." The demurrer admitted these...