Conn. Breweries Co. v. Murphy

• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: HAMERSLEY, J.
• Citation: Conn. Breweries Co. v. Murphy, 70 A. 450, 81 Conn. 145 (Conn. 1908)
• Decision Date: 03 August 1908
• Parties: CONNECTICUT BREWERIES CO. v. MURPHY.

70 A. 450

81 Conn. 145

CONNECTICUT BREWERIES CO.

v. MURPHY.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Aug. 3, 1908.

Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Alberto T. Roraback, Judge.

Action on promissory notes by the Connecticut Breweries Company against Bernard W. Murphy. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

The first count of the complaint alleges that on May 4, 1905, the defendant, by his note, promised to pay to the order of the plaintiff $1,606.59, on demand, with interest at 5 per cent., for value received, and that the plaintiff still owns said note, and it has not been paid. The defendant's answer denies the allegations of the complaint, and contains a special defense, which alleges that the note sued upon is for liquors illegally sold by the plaintiff in the town of Meriden without legal license and in violation of the laws of the state, and that such sale so made by the plaintiff is the only consideration of the note. This special defense was denied by the plaintiff. The trial court found these issues for the plaintiff and rendered judgment in its favor.

The finding for appeal states the facts found by the court, in substance, as follows:

(1) The plaintiff is a corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of malt liquors upon the premises known as No. 137 South Colony street, in Meriden, and is duly organized as such corporation under the laws of the state.

(2) On May 4, 1905, the defendant owed the plaintiff for malt liquors sold by the plaintiff to the defendant during the years 1903, 1904, and 1905, and the note in suit was given in consideration of such sales. The plaintiff still owns the note, and it has not been paid.

(3) During the years mentioned, the plaintiff sought to have the county commissioners issue licenses to it in its corporate name, but the commissioners ruled that corporations making application for licenses must choose one member or officer of the corporation to receive the license in his name, and required all corporations to so accept and receive licenses.

(4) Each license purporting to authorize the sale of liquors at the plaintiff's said place of business issued during the years mentioned was in the form following: "We, the commissioners of the county of New Haven, whose names are hereunto subscribed, do license John H. McMahon to sell ale, lager beer, cider and Rhine wine only from the date hereof, etc., at No. 137 South Colony street in the town of Meriden; $200 having been paid for this license. In testimony whereof we have subscribed our names, etc. Jacob D. Walter, Edward F. Thompson, County Commissioners."

(5) During the years mentioned, John H. McMahon was a member of the plaintiff corporation and its secretary, and by direction of the plaintiff he, as its secretary, in each year duly made an application in behalf of the plaintiff to the county commissioners that they issue a license to the plaintiff to sell its product at No. 137 South Colony street, Meriden; each such application being in the form following: "I hereby apply for a license to sell ale, etc., at 137 South Colony street, city of Meriden. My place of business is not located within 200 feet in a direct line of a church edifice or public schoolhouse or the premises pertaining thereto or any post office, etc. Dated," etc.—and was signed "John H. McMahon, Secretary, Applicant." This application was Indorsed by five persons duly certified to be electors and taxpayers of Meriden; such indorsement stating that the undersigned do "hereby indorse the application of the above-named Conn. Breweries Co. for such license." To this application was annexed an affidavit signed by "John H. McMahon, Secretary, Applicant," stating that "I, John H. McMahon, Secretary, on oath do depose and say that the business under said license is to be conducted by myself, that no disqualified person has any interest in said business, that I am not disqualified to receive said license, that there is now a license at said place," etc. One of the county commissioners adds to said application certificate that "John H. McMahon, signer of the foregoing application," personally appeared and made oath before me that no portion of the building in which it is proposed to sell liquors is used for a dwelling house. The document containing the application and other papers is indorsed "application of Conn. Breweries Co. No. 137-157 South Colony street to county commissioners for beer license."

(6) The legal fee for the license so applied for was paid by the plaintiff by its check payable to the order of the county commissioners.

(7) The county commissioners, with full knowledge that these licenses were issued for and that the payments therefor were made by the plaintiff, issued these licenses to John H. McMahon for the plaintiff.

(8) The plaintiff had no intention of violating any law in the sales made to the defendant for which the notes in suit were given, but followed all the directions of the county commissioners in obtaining the licenses, in an honest effort to meet the requirements of the law and of the county commissioners.

(9) The county commissioners, with full knowledge of the situation, issued these licenses, knowing that they were for the Connecticut Breweries Company, and that it had paid its money for the permits which the county commissioners required it to take in the name of John H. McMahon.

Upon the foregoing facts the court reached the conclusion that the note in suit is not invalid because the licenses to John H. McMahon were in fact issued for the plaintiff and paid for by it in good faith. The main reason of appeal assigns error in reaching the conclusion stated upon the facts found.

Cornelius J. Danaher, for appellant.

Patrick T. O'Brien, for appellee.

HAMERSLEY, J. (after stating the facts as above). Section 2727 of the General Statutes of 1902 enacts that "all contracts * * * any part of the consideration of which has been the illegal sale of spirituous and intoxicating liquors shall be void." This section is a part of title 16, entitled "Intoxicating Liquors." Title 16 provides: That each town shall determine by legal vote in town meeting whether or not any person shall be licensed to sell liquors in that town (section 2638); that any license granted in a town which has voted that no person shall be licensed shall be void (section 2641); that the county commissioners may license, by a writing signed by themselves, suitable persons to sell liquors in suitable places in towns in which...