Southern Express Co. v. I. Brickman Co.

• Decision Date: 18 June 1914
• Docket Number: 105
• Citation: 65 So. 954,187 Ala. 637
• Parties: SOUTHERN EXPRESS CO. v. I. BRICKMAN CO.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

65 So. 954

187 Ala. 637

SOUTHERN EXPRESS CO. v. I. BRICKMAN CO.

No. 105

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 18, 1914

Appeal from City Court of Montgomery; Gaston Gunter, Judge.

Petition by I. Brickman Company for mandamus to compel the Southern Express Company, a common carrier, to receive and transport a shipment of liquors to a party in another part of the state who was not a liquor dealer, but where it was lawful to sell liquor. From an order granting the petition, respondent appeals. Affirmed.

Jones Foster & Field, of Montgomery, for appellant.

Goodwyn & McIntyre, of Montgomery, for appellee.

DE GRAFFENRIED, J.

The only question which, in this case, we are called upon to determine, is whether or not the present laws of the state prohibit the shipment from the city of Montgomery, Ala., by a liquor dealer, doing business as such, in said city of Montgomery, in which the sale of intoxicating liquors has been legalized to a person not a liquor dealer at Troy, Ala the city of Troy being also a city in which the sale of intoxicating liquors has been legalized. The court below held that such a shipment could be legally made, and the Southern Express Company appeals.

1. It is conceded by counsel for appellant that a liquor dealer doing business as such in the city of Montgomery may, under our present laws, lawfully ship to a liquor dealer at Troy intoxicating liquors, but appellant claims that such a shipment cannot be lawfully made to a person at Troy who is not a liquor dealer at Troy. In other words, appellant concedes that a common carrier may lawfully transport intoxicating liquors from Montgomery to Troy, provided such liquors are shipped by a liquor dealer in Montgomery to a liquor dealer in Troy. On the other hand, it is claimed by appellant that a common carrier cannot transport intoxicating liquors from Montgomery, Ala., to Troy, Ala., when such liquors are shipped by a liquor dealer in Montgomery to a person not shown to be a liquor dealer in Troy.

2. To arrive at the real meaning of a statute it is necessary to consider:

"(1) What was the law before the act was passed; (2) what was the mischief or defect for which the law had not provided; (3) what remedy the Legislature had appointed; and (4) the reason of the remedy." Heydon's Case, 3 Rep 76; 10 Rep. 73A; Endlich on the Interpretation of Statutes p. 35, § 27.

"If possible, a statute must be so construed as to make it effect the purpose for which it was intended. The interpreter to understand the subject-matter and the scope and object of the enactment must *** call to his aid all those external and historical facts which are necessary for this purpose and which led to the enactment. He must refer to the history of the times to ascertain the reason for and the meaning of the provisions of a statute, and to the general state of opinion, public, judicial, and legislative, at the time of the enactment." Endlich on the Interpretation of Statutes, p. 37, § 29.

3. The legislative history of the state indicates that for many years our legislators have been actively engaged in considering and in attempting to suppress the evils which are attendant upon the sale and use as beverages, of intoxicating liquors. For many years the system of local option, with the county as the unit, prevailed, and during that period, whenever, through their legislators, the people of a county indicated that they desired the sale of intoxicating liquors to be prohibited in their county, an act was passed prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors in such county. During that period it was the legislative policy to protect the people residing in the territory in which the sale of intoxicating liquors was prohibited by law from the untrammeled importation of such liquors into such territories. Code 1896, § 5087.

This legislative policy was dictated by the desire, on the part of the Legislature, to prevent the illegal sale of intoxicating liquors in dry territory, and statutes passed pursuant to such policy were material aids in the hands of the people residing in such territory in their efforts to destroy the liquor traffic in such territory. This legislative policy did not, however, extend to the territory in which the sale of intoxicating liquors was legalized. Into that territory the importation of intoxicating liquor was not prohibited. The reason was that in such territory a citizen could, in his own town, buy the liquor that he wanted, and there was therefore no reason why he should be prohibited from buying the liquor in some town not his own and having it shipped to him at his home town. In such case there was no mischief to be remedied by prohibiting the importation of intoxicating liquor into such town, and legislation to that end would have been useless.

4. On August 9, 1909, the Legislature, by the act familiarly known as the "Carmichael Bill" (Acts Special Session 1909, p. 8), prohibited the sale of intoxicating liquors at any place in the...