State v. Beasley
| Decision Date | 09 June 1945 |
| Citation | 188 S.W.2d 332 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. ALLEN v. BEASLEY, Mayor, et al. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Appeal from Chancery Court, Williamson County; Wallace J. Smith, Special Chancellor.
Mandamus by the State, on the relation of Gordon Allen, against Earl Beasley, Mayor, and others, for a certificate to permit relator to engage in the retail liquor business. From a decree ordering the issuance of the writ, defendants appeal.
Decree reversed and cause remanded.
Robt. H. Polk, of Franklin, and Walker & Hooker and Tyree B. Harris, III, all of Nashville, for relator.
T. P. Henderson and Frank Gray, Jr., both of Franklin, for defendant Beasley et al., appellants here.
This is one of four companion causes in which the chancellor ordered the issuance of the writ of mandamus. The defendants, Mayor and Board of Aldermen of the Town of Franklin, have appealed here, as in the other three causes.
The question involved is whether the acts of the Mayor and Board of Aldermen were arbitrary and unreasonable, or based upon a sound discretion, when they refused the certificate to permit the relator to engage in the retail liquor business in the Town of Franklin.
Chapter 49, section 8, of the Public Acts of 1939 (Code, § 6648.11) imposes the performance of a discretionary act and not a ministerial one. The certificate prescribed by said section is not merely a certificate of good moral character but is also a certificate that in the opinion of the officer signing such certificate that the applicant will refrain from a violation of the act governing traffic in alcoholic beverages.
In the instant cause the answer of the defendants, Mayor and Board of Aldermen, sets out in detail numerous violations of the liquor law on the part of the relator as late as the year 1944.
We are, therefore, of opinion that the refusal on the part of the Mayor and Board of Aldermen was in no respect unreasonable or arbitrary but was left to their sound discretion. Code, § 6648.11; Insurance Co. v. Craig, 106 Tenn. 621, 62 S.W. 155; State ex rel. Cravens v. Delk, 175 Tenn. 614, 136 S.W.2d 524; Ouachita Power Co. v. Donaghey, 106 Ark. 48, 152 S.W. 1012, Ann.Cas.1915A, 447.
The statute above referred to provides that mandamus shall be the remedy of the party claiming to be aggrieved. This remedy can only lie where the act yet to be performed is ministerial. State ex rel. Millers Nat. Ins. Co. v. Fumbanks, 177 Tenn. 455, 151 S.W.2d 148. In other words, if the Board...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Latimer
...for mandamus cannot be filed successfully against a licensing Board to compel an exercise of discretion. State ex rel. v. Beasley, (3 cases), 182 Tenn. 519, 523, 529, 188 S.W. 2d 332; Wright v. State, 171 Tenn. 628, 106 S.W.2d 866; Cravens v. Storie, Mayor, 175 Tenn. 285, 133 S.W.2d 609; St......
-
SPE, Inc. v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County
...is an accepted reason for refusing to certify that an applicant will not violate liquor laws in the future. State ex rel. Allen v. Beasley, 182 Tenn. 519, 188 S.W.2d 332 (1945); State ex rel. Park v. Beasley, 182 Tenn. 523, 188 S.W.2d 333 (1945); State ex rel. Harris v. Beasley, 182 Tenn. 5......
-
Long v. National Bureau of Cas. Underwriters
...Beer Reg. Com. v. Ogle, 185 Tenn. 482, 206 S.W.2d 891; State ex rel. v. Board, 122 Tenn. 161, 121 S.W. 499; State ex rel. Allen v. Beasley, 182 Tenn. 519, 188 S.W.2d 332; 43 Am.Jur. Sec. 255, pp. 72, In the instant case the several errors assigned present different phases of the question on......
- State ex rel. Harris v. Beasley