Little v. MacFarland
| Decision Date | 06 June 1960 |
| Citation | 337 S.W.2d 233,10 McCanless 665,206 Tenn. 665 |
| Parties | , 206 Tenn. 665 Miss Evelyn LITTLE D/B/A Express Liquor Store, v. Alfred T. MacFARLAND, Commissioner. Arthur M. WEISS D/B/A Weiss Liquor Store, v. Alfred T. MacFARLAND, Commissioner. Cecil COLLINS D/B/A West Nashville Liquor Store, v. Alfred T. MacFARLAND, Commissioner. Don R. CAMERON, Jr. D/B/A Franklin Liquor Store, v. Alfred T. MacFARLAND, Commissioner. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
John J. Hooker, and Jack Norman, Nashville, for plaintiffs in error.
Henry C. Foutch, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The four plaintiffs in error listed had licenses granted to each of them as a retailer for the privilege of retailing alcoholic beverages. The Commissioner, defendant in error, revoked said licenses pursuant to notice given these defendants on July 6, 1959. After revocation of the respective licenses petition for certiorari was granted by the Circuit Court of Davidson County, wherein the matter was heard, and the trial judge, after hearing the same found that there was material evidence to support the action of the Commissioner, and that said action was not arbitrary and capricious. He thus affirmed the action of the Commissioner in revoking the licenses of these parties. From this order of the Circuit Court an appeal has been seasonably perfected, able briefs filed as well as very able arguments heard on each side. We now have the matter for disposition.
In the Circuit Court the parties by stipulation agreed that the matters could be consolidated and heard together as the questions involved are the same; only various degrees in the matter of proof as to the amount of liquor sold is the only difference. The ultimate result is that this difference does not affect the result of the lawsuit one way or the other.
Thus it is that we should, before entering upon the disposition of these cases, remember the legal situation that we face in determining this case. This was expressed by the writer in Boyd v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., Tenn., 330 S.W.2d 13, 17, thus:
When we thus approach the present cases under this view of the situation, we find that the Commissioner had before him various audits and records of these different plaintiffs in error as to the amount of whiskey that had been sold various and sundry individuals for the months of January through May and then for the subsequent two months of June and July. These reports show that the different stores had sold varying amounts running into the hundreds of gallons or cases of whiskey to each of various and sundry people over the State. In any number of instances the amount of dollars paid by individuals ran as high as $75,000 over a period of these few months. Let us take for instance the West Nashville Liquor Store which sold to one J. P. Dolan, for the months of January through May, 3,263 cases of liquor. From this summary covering many sales to various and sundry people the Commissioner found that these sales were not in conformity with their retail licenses, as is defined by statute of what a retail sale is, but would in fact probably come under a wholesale provision. Thus he found that there was ample evidence by the showing of how much had been sold to these individuals that there was a violation of the retail license in each instance.
None of the plaintiffs in error took the witness stand to rebut, retaliate or show in any way why so much liquor had been sold to each of these individuals listed in these various sales; or to attempt to show that said sales were in conformity with and in compliance with the statutory definition of a retailer or a retail sale, as to be hereinafter referred to.
We think, without peradventure of a doubt, under this proof that this amounts to ample material evidence for the Commissioner to hold that such sales were evidence and showed a clear violation of retailer's license. Anyone to reach a different conclusion under the definition of such a license certainly would have had to have been very naive and blind to reality. The mere fact that none of these parties took the stand to refute, explain or amplify these things in any way was another situation that the Commissioner could take into account. Clearly under this evidence there was the glaring inference that any trier of facts would have had to have found against the plaintiffs in error, i. e. the amount of these sales showed they were for resale--not personal use for a banquet or otherwise.
It must be kept in mind that in trying this lawsuit it is not being tried as a criminal lawsuit in prosecution of these people for violation of any criminal law, but is purely to show that these people have not complied with the agreement that they made with the State through the Commissioner of Revenue when these retail licenses were issued to each of these parties.
This is not a case of an unreasonable regulation being passed during the term of the license as in Wise v. McCanless, 183 Tenn. 107, 191 S.W.2d 169, nor any of the prohibited practices as is set out in Section 57-142, T.C.A., it is that the license is for one thing and it was being used by these parties for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Chattanooga v. Tennessee Alcoholic Beverage Commission
...to the Circuit Court by way of common law writ of certiorari (See Sec. 57--121 T.C.A.). As held by this Court in Little v. MacFarland, 206 Tenn. 665, 337 S.W.2d 233 (1960). '* * * Such a writ does not bring up for determination any question except the question of whether the Commissioner ex......
-
Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County v. Shacklett
...in the record. See City of Chattanooga v. Tennessee Alcoholic Beverage Commission, 525 S.W.2d 470, 478 (Tenn.1975); Little v. MacFarland, 206 Tenn. 665, 337 S.W.2d 233 (1960). All of the applications in the present case were considered by the Commission after the effective date of the Unifo......
-
Brey v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Bd.
...it plainly appears that there has been an abuse thereof.' Citing Re: Suspension of License, 180 Or. 495, 177 P.2d 406; Little v. MacFarland, 206 Tenn. 665, 337 S.W.2d 233. Our alcohol control laws give wide discretion to the board in regulating the liquor business. Kentucky Alcoholic Bevera......
-
Johnson v. Wright, 56056
...make a combined purchase, sending one of their number to obtain and transport it. Appellant has cited the cases of Little v. MacFarland, 206 Tenn. 665, 337 S.W.2d 233, and Eastman v. United States (8th Cir.), 153 F.2d 80, in support of his contention, but those cases are so clearly distingu......