Stanley v. Monnet
| Decision Date | 05 February 1886 |
| Citation | 9 P. 755,34 Kan. 708 |
| Parties | A. M. STANLEY v. ISAAC MONNET, as Probate Judge of Sumner County |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided January, 1886
Original Proceedings in Mandamus.
THE opinion, filed February 5, 1886, states the case.
Writ quashed.
McDonald & Parker, and Isaac G. Reed, for petitioner.
Murray & Berry, contra.
On February 10, 1885, A. M. Stanley, engaged in the business of a druggist, in Wellington, Sumner county, applied to Isaac Monnet, as the probate judge of that county for a permit to sell intoxicating liquors for medical scientific and mechanical purposes. On February 11, 1885, the probate judge refused to grant the permit. On February 14 1885, this court granted an alternative writ of mandamus against Monnet, upon the application of Stanley, requiring him to issue to the latter a permit, or show cause why he did not do so. Subsequently a motion to quash the alternative writ was filed, which alleged, among other things, that the writ did not state facts sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to maintain his action. In support of the motion, it is contended that the issuing of a permit requires the exercise of official judgment or discretion on the part of the probate judge, and that mandamus will not lie to control his judgment or discretion. Sec. 2 of chapter 128, Laws of 1881, in force at the time the plaintiff presented his petition and bond to the probate judge, among other things provides:
We think the motion to quash must be sustained. The probate judge is vested by the statute with discretionary power in granting permits, and the duty to do so is not peremptory and absolute. It is not claimed that the probate judge refused to receive or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chapman v. Boynton
...bond was required only in the sum of $1,000. A permit under this act, issued at the discretion of the probate judge (see Stanley v. Monnet, 34 Kan. 708, 9 P. 755; Martin v. Probate Judge, 32 Kan. 146, 4 P. 158), who received compensation in the sum of $5 for his services. The permit was to ......
-
Smyth v. Butters
...number of licenses to be granted, when, in the judgment of the council, the welfare of the city suggests such action." In Stanley v. Monnet, 34 Kan. 708, 9 P. 755, the court "We think the motion to quash must be sustained. The probate judge is vested by the statute with discretionary power ......
-
Jackman v. The Public Service Commission of The State of Kansas
...liquor this court said the refusal of the judge to give his reason for not granting the application was immaterial. ( Stanley v. Monnet, 34 Kan. 708, 9 P. 755.) language of the opinion, however, does not adequately indicate what it was that the judge declined to furnish. The record shows th......