Somlyo v. Schott
| Decision Date | 24 March 1950 |
| Citation | 45 So.2d 502 |
| Parties | SOMLYO v. SCHOTT, Director of State Beverage Department. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
L. W. Renfroe, Tallahassee, for respondent.
Wm. C. McLean, Tampa, amicus curiae.
Pursuant to Sec. (2) of Section 561.44, F.S.A., chapter 23746, Acts of 1947, the Board of County Commissioners of Hillsborough County, Florida, by an appropriate resolution established a zoning area situated outside the incorporate limits of municipalities but within the limits of Hillsborough County wherein licensed vendors would be permitted to sell liquors, wine and beer as provided by law. In part it provided--'No establishment for the sale of whisky outside of any municipal limits may be nearer than 2500 feet to an established church or school according to the shortest route of ordinary pedestrian travel.' It may be assumed that the relator's place of business is located within the area described in the resolution.
It is admitted that the relator now and for some time past has operated a licensed package store in the prohibited area and the resolution exempts the business from the terms of the resolution by the following language: 'Be It Further Resolved that the existing vendor's places of business duly licensed under the beverage laws of Florida, and located within the aforesaid territory shall not be affected by this resolution so long as the same continue to be operated in accordance with law in the location where the same are now situated from the date of this resolution, unless and until the same or any of them may be revoked in accordance with the provisions of Law, but upon the surrender, revocation or discontinuance of such existing license, the same shall thereafter be forbidden within the purview of this resolution.'
The relator applied to the State Beverage Director for the issuance of a license to sell beverages, regardless of alcoholic content, for consumption on the premises at the same location and in the same building where relator is now licensed to sell beverages in sealed containers for consumption off the premises. The Director disapproved the application for the reason, viz.: 'The location is within an area of Hillsborough County prohibited from the conduct of such a licensed place of business herein applied for by resolution adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Hillsborough County, Florida, January 28, 1949, pursuant to Section 561.44, Florida Statutes 1941, as amended [F.S.A.]; and although applicant now holds a valid package store license the approval of the foregoing application for a license for consumption on the premises (4 COP) in lieu of said package store license at the same location constitutes an enlargement or extension of an existing use contrary to the resolution aforesaid.'
In an original action of mandamus, the relator contends that the approval of his application by the Beverage Director under the terms and provisions of the resolution as adopted by the County Commissioners is ministerial and the relator has a clear legal right to the approval of his application to sell beverages, regardless of alcoholic content, for consumption on the premises at the same location and in the same building where relator is now licensed to sell beverages in sealed containers for consumption off the premises. That this clear legal duty rests on the Beverage Director regardless of his answer and return to the alternative writ here issued.
The Beverage Director disapproved the relator's application because he 'now holds a valid package store license and the approval of the foregoing application for a license for consumption on the premises in lieu of said package store license at the same location...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. West v. Gray
...of this court to grant or withhold extraordinary writs is subject to the use of sound and informed judicial discretion, Somlyo v. Schott, Fla., 45 So.2d 502. Were the law to permit such writs to be made available of right, on the basis of a formalized procedure, their essential character wo......
-
State ex rel. West v. Gray
...of this court to grant or withhold extraordinary writs is subject to the use of sound and informed judicial discretion, Somlyo v. Schott, Fla., 45 So.2d 502. Were the law to permit such writs to be made available of right, on the basis of a formalized procedure, their essential character wo......
-
Biddulph v. Mortham
...That exception applies here. In Florida, mandamus is not awarded as a matter of right but at the court's discretion, Somlyo v. Schott, 45 So.2d 502, 504 (Fla.1950), and only upon a showing of a clear legal right to performance of an indisputable legal duty, State ex rel. Eichenbaum v. Cochr......
-
State ex rel. Eichenbaum v. Cochran
...Fayette County v. State ex rel. Taylor, 156 Fla. 708, 24 So.2d 99; State ex rel. Norman v. Holmer, 160 Fla. 434, 35 So.2d 369; Somlyo v. Schott, Fla., 45 So.2d 502. We should also retain in our thinking the proposition that the regulation and control of the alcoholic beverage business is pe......