Maxwell v. Corp. of Jonesboro
| Decision Date | 30 September 1872 |
| Parties | Maxwell v. Corporation of Jonesboro. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
FROM WASHINGTON.
Appeal from the decree of the Chancery Court at Jonesboro, May Term, 1871. H. C. SMITH, Ch.
Allison, for complainant:
1. The bill is not demurrable, because the names of the individuals who compose the corporation are given. They are described as the “Mayor and Aldermen of the town of Jonesboro.” The charges in, and relief sought by the bill, are against the corporation and not against the individuals.
2. Mayor and Aldermen can not recall rights which vested in complainant, under the ordinance which was in force at the time he bought his privilege. Aldermen v. Memphis, 2 Col., 645; Mayor of Memphis v. Winfield, 8 Hum., 707;Robinson v. Mayor, 1 Hum., 156; Mayor v. Beasly, 1 Hum., 232; Angel & Ames on Corp., sections 342, 335, 332, 334 and 339, Code 49.
__________________, for Defendants.
This is a bill to restrain the corporation of Jonesboro from enforcing an ordinance by which all licensed retailers of liquors are required to close their doors and cease selling at dark each day.
Complainant was a retailer, licensed by the corporate and State authorities before the passage of the ordinance requiring retailers to close up at dark. His license was, in general terms, authorizing him to retail for twelve months, which term had not expired when the regulating ordinance was passed. He disregarded the ordinance and proceeded to sell after dark. For this violation of the ordinance he was arrested and fined; and now brings his bill to restrain the corporation from proceeding to enforce the penalty of the ordinance.
The only question which it is necessary to notice, is that which involves the power of a municipal corporation, after having granted a license in general terms to retail liquors, to pass an ordinance restraining him from selling after dark under that license.
In the case of Smith & Lackey v. Knoxville, 3 Head, 245, we held that the prescribing of a time at which licensed retailers should close their houses, was a police regulation, for the good order and quiet of towns and cities. When the State grants the license to retail, it is always implied that the privilege is to be exercised in subordination to the police powers of the town or city. Hence, in that case it was held, that an ordinance requiring retailers to cease at 9 o'clock at night, was no violation of the rights of the retailer acquired by his license. The court said: “It must be left to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Calloway
...closing saloons and places where liquor is sold during certain hours in the night have universally been upheld as reasonable. (Maxwell v. Jonesboro, Heisk. (Tenn.) 257; Ex parte Wolf, 14 Neb. 24, 14 N.W. 660.) Counsel for appellant would have this court believe that this is the only constru......
-
Grubb v. Mayor and Aldermen of Morristown
...case the general beer law and also the charter of Morristown expressly authorize the passage of the ordinance in question. In Maxwell v. Corp. of Jonesboro, supra, a similar ordinance upheld by the Court as a proper exercise of the city's police power. The case of Newbern v. McCann, 105 Ten......
-
Wise v. McCanless
...question in the case is, whether the ordinance requiring retailers to close their houses at dark was unreasonable or oppressive?' (Page 259 of 58 Tenn.) of our municipal ordinance cases hold that if unreasonable and oppressive such regulations will be stricken down. Grills v. Jonesboro, 67 ......
-
State ex rel. Major v. Cummings
... ... regulations affecting the trade as are not unreasonable or ... oppressive. Maxwell v. Jonesboro Corp., 11 Heisk ... 257, 58 Tenn. 257 ... The ... right of the ... ...