Hanson v. Village Council of Romeo, 63
| Decision Date | 07 June 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 63,63 |
| Citation | 339 Mich. 612,64 N.W.2d 570 |
| Parties | HANSON et al. v. VILLAGE COUNCIL OF ROMEO et al. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Haward H. Campbell, Detroit (John T. Lungerhausen, Mt. Clemens, of counsel), for plaintiffs and appellants, Earl Hanson and Ethel Hanson.
Percy G. Horler, Romeo, and Ivan A. Johnston, Mount Clemens, for defendants and appellees.
Before the Entire Bench.
Plaintiffs, owners of the only hotel in the village of Romeo, filed their bill of complaint praying (1) that defendant Quick, a tavern owner, be restrained from selling spirits other than beer and wine for consumption on the premises under a class 'C' license; (2) that the resolution of the defendant village council, approving Quick's license therefor, be declared invalid and the council enjoined from hereafter approving such license for Quick; and (3) that it be determined that plaintiffs are entitled to approval of their application for a class 'B' hotel license for such sale of spirits. From an order granting defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs appeal.
Prior to March 9, 1953, such sale of spirits for consumption on the premises could not lawfully be made in the village. Plaintiffs operated under a class 'A' hotel license permitting the sale of beer and wine for consumption on the premises. Two tavern owners in the village, defendant Quick and another, held 'tavern' licenses permitting such beer and wine sales. On the mentioned date a majority of the electors of the village voted, at a referendum election conducted under the provisions of C.L.1948, § 436.56, Stat.Ann. § 18.1027, in favor of permitting the sale of spirits, in addition to beer and wine, for consumption on the premises in the village. Thereafter plaintiffs filed with the village council an application for approval of a class 'B' hotel license and the two tavern owners filed for approval of class 'C' licenses for their taverns, all to authorize such sales of spirits. Under the provisions of C.J.S.1952, § 436.19c, Stat.Ann.1953 Cum.Supp. § 18.990 (3), not to exceed two such licenses may be granted in the village since the population is only 3,500. The village council first considered and approved the application of the other tavern owner and then that of defendant Quick, but took no action on that of plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs' chief contention is that the provisions of C.L.1948, § 436.56, Stat.Ann. § 18.1027, permit the sale of spirits for consumption on the premises by restaurants and hotels and that when the electors of a village exercise their referendum powers under that section a mandate results, both by operation of the statute and the vote of the electors, directing the village council to approve licenses for such sales in both hotels and restaurants. From that premise plaintiffs reason that, after a referendum, in any village with a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bundo v. City of Walled Lake
...local bodies must afford the individual procedural due process. The City of Walled Lake, relying upon Hanson v. Romeo Village Council, 339 Mich. 612, 64 N.W.2d 570 (1954) and Johnson v. Liquor Control Commission, 266 Mich. 682, 254 N.W. 557 (1934), contends that it is the law of this State ......
-
Bisco's, Inc. v. Michigan Liquor Control Commission
...Liquor License. 3 The Court of Appeals, in dismissing plaintiff's complaint, held that it was precluded by Hanson v. Romeo Village Council, 339 Mich. 612, 64 N.W.2d 570 (1954) from reviewing 'local legislative body's action with respect to approval of liquor licenses'. In Bundo we held that......
-
Whitesides v. Council of City of Cheyenne
...220 S.W.2d 899. That is held to be true even when the governing board acts arbitrarily and capriciously. Hanson v. Village Council of Romeo, 339 Mich. 612, 613, 64 N.W.2d 570. See also 48 C.J.S. Intoxicating Liquors § 163, p. 266. An appeal is a statutory right. Duncan v. Superior Court, su......
-
Lewis v. City of Grand Rapids, 15669.
...308 Mich. 360, 363, 364, 131 N.W.2d 850 (1944). On this due process question, we need not accept or rely on Hanson v. Romeo Village Council, 339 Mich. 612, 615, 64 N.W.2d 570, 571 which, relevant to the discretionary action of a local legislative body, said "even though exercised in an arbi......