Slater v. Fire & Police Bd. of City & County of Denver
| Decision Date | 04 May 1908 |
| Citation | 96 P. 554,43 Colo. 225 |
| Parties | SLATER v. FIRE & POLICE BOARD OF CITY & COUNTY OF DENVER et al. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied July 6, 1908.
Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; B. M. Malone Judge.
Certiorari by William C. Slater to the fire and police board of the city and county of Denver and others to review the grant of a liquor license to William Coors. From a judgment of the district court sustaining the license, petitioner brings error. Reversed and remanded.
William Coors applied to the fire and police board of the city and county of Denver for a license to sell intoxicating liquors at No. 3787 Downing avenue. This number embracted lot 60, in block 25, Riverside Addition. The following plat will aid in understanding the questions we are called upon to determine:
(Image Omitted)
Block 25 consists of 32 lots, each of the width of 25 feet. Immediately adjoining it on the southwest is a plat of ground known as Baldwin's Addition, which also consists of 32 lots, each 25 feet in width. The ground embraced in the two plats is bounded on the northeast by Thirty Eighth street; on the southwest by Thirty-Sixth street; on the northwest by Blake street; and on the southeast by East Walnut street and Downing avenue. The application of Coors was accompanied by a petition praying for the issuance of the license by the owners of lots facing on East Walnut street and Downing avenue as follows: Those owning lots 49, 51, 52, 58, 59, and 60 in block 25; and the owners of lots 17, 18, 19, 23, 24 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 32, in Baldwin's Addition--in all, the owners of 17 lots. William C. Slater, the owner of lots 61 to 64, both inclusive, in block 25, Riverside Addition, protested against the granting of the license upon the grounds (1) that the application for the license was addressed to the city council of the city and county of Denver, and not to the fire and police board; (2) that the owners of a majority of the lots in block 25, fronting on Downing avenue, had not petitioned for the license to be granted; and (3) that the owners of a majority of the lots in the tract bounded by the streets as exhibited on the plat had not petitioned for such license.
Section 75 of the charter of the city and county of Denver provides 'No license for the sale of spirituous, malt, or intoxicating liquors in liquor saloons, dramshops, or tippling houses shall be granted, except on the petition of the owners of a majority of the real estate within the frontage of the block in which such liquors or any thereof are to be sold.' Slater's protest was overruled and the license granted. Thereafter Slater petitioned the fire and police board to revoke the license upon practically the same grounds stated in his protest. This petition was also denied. Following this action of the board, Slater commenced proceedings in certiorari, in the district court, to review the action of the board in the premises. In his petition therefor he set out substantially the same facts alleged in his protest against granting the license, and his petition to the board to revoke it, the action of the board in overruling his protest and denying his petition, and prayed for judgment directing the board to annul the license issued to Coors. The writ issued, to which the board made a return of the record of its proceedings relative to the license from which it appears that the owners of the lots as above designated, and no others, in that part of the block or tract fronting on East Walnut street and Downing avenue, had petitioned for the license granted to Coors. Upon this return the petitioner moved for judgment on the pleadings, which was denied. Thereupon he interposed a general demurrer to the return which demurrer was overruled. Having elected to stand by his demurrer, his petition or complaint was dismissed, and judgment entered in favor of the board, dismissing the action. He brings the case here for review on error.
John Hipp, for plaintiff in error.
Ezra Keeler, for defendants in error.
GABBERT, J. (after stating the facts as above).
The only body authorized to issue licenses for the sale of intoxicating liquors within the city and county of Denver is the fire and police board of that municipality; but because the application for the license and petition in support thereof was not addressed to that body is not material. It was treated by the fire and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weeks v. Hetland
...city, village, or town, it is used synonymously with the term “square.” See, also, Fraser v. Ott, 95 Cal. 661, 30 P. 793;Slater v. Denver et al., 43 Colo. 225, 96 P. 554;Harrison v. People, 195 Ill. 466, 63 N. E. 191;Bowlus v. Iola, 82 Kan. 774, 109 P. 405;Olsson v. Topeka, 42 Kan. 709, 21 ......
-
Balanced Rock Scenic Attractions v. Town of Manitou
...Topeka, 42 Kan. 709, 21 P. 219; Bowlus v. Iola, 82 Kan. 774, 109 P. 405; Fruita v. Williams, 33 Colo. 157, 80 P. 132; Slater v. Fire & Police Board, 43 Colo. 225, 96 P. 554. There is no such governmental subdivision of a section. Glos v. Wilson, 198 Ill. 44, 64 N. E. 734. As appellant's lan......
-
Chapin Lumber Co. v. Day, 14675.
... ... to District Court Arapahoe County; Samuel W. Johnson, Judge ... Action ... Coughlin, both of ... Denver, for defendant in error ... HILLIARD, ... will be effectuated. Slater v. Fire & Police Board, ... 43 Colo. 225, 231, ... ...
-
Weeks v. Hetland
...a city, village or town, it is used synonymously with the term square. See also Fraser v. Ott, 95 Cal. 661, 30 P. 793; Slater v. Fire & Police Bd. 43 Colo. 225, 96 P. 554; Harrison People, 195 Ill. 466, 63 N.E. 191; Bowlus v. Iola, 82 Kan. 774, 109 P. 405; Olsson v. Topeka, 42 Kan. 709, 21 ......