Courtright v. Common Council of Village of Newaygo
| Decision Date | 30 June 1893 |
| Citation | 96 Mich. 290,55 N.W. 808 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | COURTRIGHT v. COMMON COUNCIL OF VILLAGE OF NEWAYGO. |
Petition by William Courtright for writ of mandamus to compel the common council of the village of Newaygo to approve relator's bond as a retail liquor dealer. Writ granted.
George Luton, for relator. William D. Fuller, for respondent.
This is an application for a mandamus to compel respondent to approve relator's bond as a retail dealer in liquors. Relator is carrying on a hotel known as "The Courtright," having a frontage of 175 feet on Main street, and which is wholly occupied by relator. It is insisted by respondent that relator has for some years operated, and now proposes to operate, two separate bars in said hotel,-one on the first floor, and one in the basement,-both of which have independent entrances from the street, and also from the alleys in the rear of the hotel, and both of which are accessible from the hotel office. The bond described the place at which the business is to be carried on, as "at the Courtright," and respondent insists that the description is not sufficiently specific to prevent the maintenance of both bars under one license. The form of the bond required by the law of 1887 is set forth in the act [1] and contains the following recital: "Whereas, the above-named principal proposes to carry on the business of * * * [and describing the place of business] at * * *, in the county of * * *." The place of business of relator is the hotel known as "The Courtright," and that description includes any room within the curtilage. The statute recognizes the fact that other lines of business are often carried on upon the same premises within which the liquor business is or is to be carried on, and makes a distinction in its restrictions between the room in which liquors are kept for sale, and the place within which the business is carried on. Section 14 [2] makes it unlawful to permit any student or minor to play at cards, or any game of chance, in any part of any building in which liquors are sold, while section 15 [3] makes it unlawful to allow any minor to visit or remain in any room where liquors are sold, unless accompanied by his father or other legal guardian. Section 17 [4] provides that all saloons restaurants, bars in taverns or elsewhere, and all other places, except drug stores, shall be closed on certain days and during certain hours. In Goff v. Fowler, 3 Pick. 300, defendant was licensed as an innkeeper, and it was insisted that such license did not extend to a building detached from the house proper, but it was held that the detached store was a dependency. In Com v. McCormick, 150 Mass. 270, 22 N.E. 911, it was held that a license to sell in a "one and a half story building" imported an authority to sell anywhere in such building. In City of St. Louis v. Gerardi, 90 Mo. 640, 3 S.W. 408, the Planters' House occupied one-half of a square, and had three street fronts, and a bar at each of the front entrances. The bars were screened off by partitions, and had direct communication, by means of doorways, with the office, rotunda, and restaurant. The ordinance provided that application for licenses should be made in writing, and should state specifically where the dramshop was to be kept, and that "all licenses issued under this ordinance shall be kept posted up in some conspicuous place behind the bar, and as near the center thereof as possible." Held, that the place at which the dramshop was to be kept was the Planters' House; that the bar is simply the means of carrying on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial