State ex rel. Young v. Minnesota Club

• Decision Date: 22 January 1909
• Docket Number: 15,690 - (21)
• Citation: 119 N.W. 494,106 Minn. 515
• Parties: STATE ex rel. EDWARD T. YOUNG v. MINNESOTA CLUB
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

119 N.W. 494

106 Minn. 515

STATE ex rel. EDWARD T. YOUNG v. MINNESOTA CLUB

Nos. 15,690 - (21)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

January 22, 1909

Prior to 1907 defendant club was never required to take out a license to sell liquor. At that time the public authorities notified it to do so. The question whether it was required to do so was thereupon submitted to the district court for Ramsey county on an agreed statement of facts. The court Kelly, J., decided in favor of defendant, and from the judgment entered, plaintiff appealed. Reversed.

SYLLABUS

Section 1519 -- "Person."

A social organization, or club, incorporated under the laws of this state, is a "person," within the meaning of section 1519, R.L. 1905.

Sale of Liquor by Social Club.

The distribution of intoxicating liquors in less quantities than five gallons by such a club to its members, for a consideration, though without profit, constitutes a "sale" within the meaning of that section, and is prohibited, unless protected by license as provided by law.

Edward T. Young, Attorney General, and C. Louis Weeks, Special Assistant to Attorney General, for appellant.

The transaction was a sale. State v. Lockyear, 95 N.C 633; People v. Law, 203 Ill. 127; State v. Essex Club, 53 N.J.L. 99. The learned district judge indicated that he based his decision on the ground that it is not "such sale or furnishing of liquor as under the statutes is unlawful unless first licensed." The appellant contends the sale is unlawful unless first licensed.

It may be conceded that the club house of the respondent is not a public drinking place and that section 1545 does not apply to it, without in any degree impairing the contention of the state that section 1519 requires a license as a condition precedent to making a sale. The club house is certainly not a saloon, public bar, or place of public resort. Koenig v. State, 33 Tex. Crim. 367; Grant v. State, 33 Tex. Crim. 527. Nor, probably, is it a place of business within the purview of section 1545. The state contends any sale without a license is prohibited.

C. D. O'Brien and W. H. Lightner, for respondent.

The liquor license law is a police regulation solely. City of Rochester v. Upman, 19 Minn. 78 (108); State v. Cassidy, 22 Minn. 312; State v. Deusting, 33 Minn. 102; State v. Funk, 27 Minn. 318; State v. Robinson, 101 Minn. 277, 287; Claussen v. City of Luverne, 103 Minn. 491; Leavitt v. City of Morris, 105 Minn. 170. The liquor license law, being penal in character, is to be strictly construed. Ferch v. Victoria Ele. Co., 79 Minn. 416; 26 Am. & Eng. Enc. (2d Ed.) 658; 13 Am. & Eng. Enc. (2d Ed.) 55; Sutherland, St. Const. § 208; State v. Walsh, 43 Minn. 444.

R.L. 1905, § 1519, et seq., are intended to regulate the retail business or traffic in intoxicating liquors conducted for a profit and are not applicable to respondent. It is not contrary to the law and public policy of this state to use or drink intoxicating liquor. The object of the license law is to regulate the retail business conducted for a profit. See sections 1519, 1521, 1522, 1532, 1535, 1543, 1545 and 1564; State v. Deusting, supra; State v. Orth, 38 Minn. 150, 154; State v. Bates, 96 Minn. 110, 114, 115; State v. Jones, 88 Minn. 27. The appellant in its brief concedes that respondent is not a public drinking place; that section 1545 does not apply to it; that the club house is not a saloon, public bar, or place of public resort and that it is not a "place of business" within section 1545.

The very great weight of authority is that under liquor license laws, similar to our own, the transactions of respondent do not constitute sales within the meaning of such laws, which are designed to regulate the retail business conducted for a profit. People v. Adelphi Club, 149 N.Y. 5; Klein v. Livingston, 177 Pa. St. 224; Com. v. Pomphret, 137 Mass. 564; Com. v. Ewig, 145 Mass. 119; Seim v. State, 55 Md. 566; State v. St. Louis, 125 Mo. 308; State v. McMaster, 35 S.C. 1; Piedmont v. Com., 87 Va. 540; Tennessee v. Dwyer, 11 Lea, 452; Barden v. Montana, 10 Mont. 330; Koenig v. State, 33 Tex. Crim. 367; Manassas v. Mobile, 121 Ala. 561; State v. Boston, 45 La. An. 585; 17 Am. & Eng. Enc. (2d Ed.) 361; 24 Am. St. 35-50.

OPINION

LEWIS, J.

Does the serving of liquors to its members by the Minnesota Club, of St. Paul, subject the club to the necessity of obtaining a license, pursuant to the provisions of chapter 16, R.L. 1905? The cause was argued upon the following agreed statement of facts:

"The Minnesota Club is a corporation organized solely for social purposes, and not for pecuniary profit, under the statutes of the state applicable to such organizations. It was created and has existed ever since 1884. It maintains a club house building, which it owns. The articles of incorporation, constitution and by-laws of said club are hereby referred to for greater certainty, and may be used on presentation of the question herein involved by either party. Ever since its organization said corporation has maintained its club house, and carried on therein a restaurant, and served its members with meals and wines and liquors upon their request. It always has and maintains certain rooms and sleeping apartments for the use of its members, and is conducted as a bona fide social club.

"Its membership consists of resident and nonresident members, each of whom is elected under the provisions touching membership found in the constitution and by-laws. No person, not a member of such club, can enter upon its premises, or be entertained therein, save that nonresidents of Ramsey county may be admitted to the privileges of said club for a period not exceeding ten days upon a written invitation of a member in good standing and a written card issued to such visitor. During the period of such visit, such visitor is entitled to all the privileges of the club, but the person introducing him is responsible for him. Residents of Ramsey county, not members of the club, may be entertained in one of the private dining rooms of said club, at a dinner given by some member for not less than four persons, and such persons attending such dinner as such guests are not entitled to any of the privileges of the club whatever, nor may they enter upon any part of said club except such private dining room, and the entrance to and egress therefrom.

"Each member of said club, besides his initiation fees, pays annual dues; resident members $60 per annum, and nonresident members $30 per annum. The club transacts all its business in its corporate name, through regularly chosen officers. It furnishes its members and their guests with meals to order, also with cigars, or any kind of intoxicating liquor to order, but only serves liquor within the club by the drink, and therefore in quantities of less than five gallons. The meals, cigars, or liquors so served are taken from the common stock of such articles owned by the club, and are charged to the member ordering the same at such price as will reimburse the club for the cost of the article furnished and the expense of the service; the aim being to make the club self-sustaining, but not to make a profit on its gross business. Members are required to pay their accounts for meals, cigars, or liquors monthly.

"Up to this time no license for the sale of liquor has been required of said club by the city of St. Paul, in which said club is situated; but said club has always paid the special tax imposed by the United States government for the sale of liquors."

The learned trial court was of opinion that the object of this class of legislation has always been to control the traffic in liquors as a business, and has no application to a purely private social club, where the dispensing of liquors is a mere incident to the main purpose of the organization. We believe this is the first time in the history of this state that the courts have been called upon to construe the statute with reference to such organizations, and the importance of the question demands that it be considered from the various points of view suggested at the argument. The Minnesota Club is a corporation duly created and existing under the laws of this state. It is a legal entity, and within its corporate powers transacts business in the commercial world and with its members with the same effect as any other corporation. As a corporation the club purchases liquors at wholesale, keeps them in stock, and upon application furnishes its members liquor in quantities less than five gallons to be drunk upon the premises. The trial court was of opinion that the drastic measures of the statute could not have been intended to apply to social clubs, for the reason that it would be detrimental to the purpose of such institutions and subject them to such espionage and restrictions as to practically interfere with the main object of their existence.

From territorial times one continuing purpose runs through the legislative expression on this subject, and that is to prohibit absolutely the sale or dispensing of intoxicating liquors, less than a certain quantity, unless duly licensed. By chapter 8, p. 43, Laws 1849, the sale of intoxicating liquors without a license in quantities less than one quart was prohibited. This remained unchanged until 1858, when the amount was increased to five gallons, at which time the language of the statute was: "If any person or persons shall sell or barter any spirituous, vinous or fermented or malt liquors, in less quantity or quantities than five gallons, without first having obtained license therefor," etc. Pub. St. 1849-1858, c. 18, § 20. In the revision of 1866 (G.S. 1866, c. 16, § 4) the prohibition was expressed as follows: "Whoever sells or barters any spirituous, vinous, fermented, or...