Pichler v. Snavely

• Decision Date: 21 March 1951
• Citation: 366 Pa. 568,79 A.2d 227
• Parties: PICHLER v. SNAVELY.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

79 A.2d 227

366 Pa. 568

PICHLER v. SNAVELY.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

March 21, 1951

Action by Frank Pichler against Howard P. Snavely in assumpsit to recover damages resulting from the defendant's failure to retransfer a liquor license. From an order and judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County at No. 9, June Term, 1949, Schaeffer, P. J., sustaining preliminary objections to the amended complaint, the plaintiff appealed. The Supreme Court, No. 212, January Term, Bell, J., held that an action in assumpsit could not be maintained for damages resulting from failure to retransfer the license.

Order affirmed.

Where plaintiff leased licensed premises to defendant and transferred to defendant the liquor license under lease obligating defendant to re-transfer license on removal from leased premises, plaintiff could not maintain action in assumpsit for damages resulting from defendant's failure to re-transfer license as agreed, since value of license could not be accurately determined in an action at law.

Kenelm L. Shirk, Jr., Kenelm L. Shirk, Sr., Lancaster, for appellant.

W Roger Simpson, W. Hensel Brown, Lancaster, for appellee.

Before DREW, C. J., STEARNE, JONES, BELL, LADNER and CHIDSEY, JJ.

BELL Justice.

Plaintiff appeals from an order of the court below sustaining preliminary objections to his amended complaint in assumpsit in which he claimed $5,000 for damages resulting from defendant's failure to retransfer a liquor license.

Plaintiff leased his premises 253 E. Chestnut Street Lancaster, Pa. to the defendant as a licensed premises and in and by said lease transferred to defendant a liquor license then held by plaintiff. The lease contained the following provision: ‘ Should Howard P. Snavely remove from the within leased premises while he had a liquor license-he agrees to transfer said liquor license to Frank Pichler’. Snavely removed from said leased premises while he had a liquor license and leased the next door property and had the license transferred to himself at said place. Defendant then refused to retransfer the liquor license to plaintiff. Plaintiff claimed that the failure to transfer said liquor license damaged him to the extent of $5,000 viz., the difference between the value of his property with a liquor license and the value of his property without a liquor license.

The law is well settled that a liquor license is not a property right, but only a purely personal privilege for a specific limited time, which is subject to termination by the Liquor Control Board for cause and which, in any event, terminates with the licensee's life. A liquor license or the privilege to sell liquors for a specified time, although often very valuable, is not assignable, (as that term is generally understood) nor does it go to the personal representatives^[1] or become an asset of the holder's estate in case of death: In re Grimm's Estate, 181 Pa. 233, 236, 37 A. 403; Blumenthal's Petition, 125 Pa. 412, 415, 18 A. 395; In re Buck's Estate, 185 Pa. 57, 60, 39 A. 821; In re Mueller's Estate, 190 Pa. 601, 603, 42 A. 1021; Commonwealth v. James J. Cochran Post No. 251, 350 Pa. 111, 119, 38 A.2d 250; Spankard's Liquor License Case, 138 Pa. Super. 251, 259, 10 A.2d 899.

Equity will grant specific performance of a contract to sell or assign a liquor license- Cochrane v. Szpakowski, 355 Pa. 357, 49 A.2d 692; Pavlick v. Zeller-meyer, 359 Pa. 278, 59 A.2d 92; Rekas v. Dopkavich, 362 Pa 292, 66 A.2d 230; Ritz v....