Steamers Service Co., Inc. v. Wright

• Decision Date: 14 January 1974
• Docket Number: No. 2,No. 56292,56292,2
• Citation: 505 S.W.2d 65
• Parties: STEAMERS SERVICE COMPANY, INC., Respondent, v. William P. WRIGHT, acting supervisor of Liquor Control, Appellant
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

Page 65

505 S.W.2d 65

STEAMERS SERVICE COMPANY, INC., Respondent, v. William P. WRIGHT, acting supervisor of Liquor Control, Appellant.

No. 56292.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

Jan. 14, 1974.

Lucas & Murphy, Wilder Lucas, Michael D. O'Keefe, St. Louis, for respondent.

John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Richard L. Wieler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for appellant.

HENLEY, Presiding Judge.

This case involves applications for and denial of state licenses to sell intoxicating liquor by the drink at retail for consumption on the premises of the steamship Admiral and the motor vessel Huck Finn, both of the city of St. Louis.

In April, 1970, Steamers Service Company, Inc. (hereinafter Steamers Service) made application to the Supervisor of Liquor Control (hereinafter Supervisor) for a state license to sell intoxicating liquor by the drink at retail on board the S/S Admiral for consumption on the vessel's premises. At the same time, Steamers Service also made application for a like license applicable to the M/V Huck Finn. Both vessels are moored permanently at the foot of Washington avenue in the city of St. Louis, but on regular occasions each leaves its moorings for short pleasure cruises on the Mississippi river during which entertainment, food and drink is provided the passengers. On these occasions, the vessels leave the corporate limits of the city by crossing the middle of the main channel and going downstream on the east side of the river. The city of St. Louis has issued its licenses to Steamers Service authorizing the sale of intoxicating liquor by the drink at retail for consumption on the premises of each of the vessels.

In June, 1970, the Supervisor denied the applications, stating as his reasons therefor (1) that the '(s)ale of intoxicating liquor on a boat or vessel operating (o)n navigable waters in or adjacent to this State is unlawful'; and (2) that '(t)he Supervisor of Liquor Control cannot issue a license for the sale of intoxicating liquor to any boat or vessel operating on navigable waters in or adjacent to this State.'

In July, 1970, Steamers Service filed an application for review of this decision and thereafter the Supervisor transmitted to the circuit court a certified copy of the record of the proceedings before him. On review in the circuit court, the trial judge filed a memorandum opinion holding that the Supervisor erred in denying the applications and entered a judgment reversing his decision and remanding the case for further proceedings. The Supervisor appealed from this judgment. The appeal was heard in this Division and an opinion adopted reversing the trial court, but on motion of respondent a rehearing was granted and the cause was again heard and submitted. We now again reverse and remand.

The Supervisor contends that he may issue licenses only as expressly authorized by law; that the statute ¹ which authorizes the issuance of a license for the sale of intoxicating liquor by the drink permits the issuance of such licenses for sales to be made only within the corporate limits of certain cities, ² including St. Louis; that Steamers Service proposes to sell such liquor on the Admiral and the Huck Finn not only while moored within the city but also while cruising the river outside its limits in waters of both this state and the state of Illinois and over which these states have concurrent jurisdiction; that the sale of intoxicating liquor by the drink on these vessels outside St. Louis but on waters over which this state has jurisdiction would be in violation of the laws of this state; that under the facts and the law he was not authorized to issue these licenses. He contends also that not only was he not authorized to honor these applications, he was prohibited from doing so by the last proviso in subsection 1 of § 311.090. ³

Steamers Service contends that a boat is a 'premises' within the meaning of that word as used in § 311.090 authorizing the issuance of a license to sell intoxicating liquor by the drink '* * * for consumption on the premises described in the application * * *;' that the word 'premises,' as so used, includes excursion boats such as the Admiral and the Huck Finn when 'in operation' outside the city and requires no definition; that § 311.090 authorizes the issuance of the licenses applied for and, therefore, the decision of the Supervisor denying the applications is not authrized by law and is based upon a '* * * capricious and * * * narrow construction of (the liquor control law) * * *.' Steamers Service also contends that the boats on which it seeks licenses to sell intoxicating liquor are engaged in interstate commerce during their regular excursions from the city and that refusal of the licenses constitutes an unlawful interference with such commerce in violation of the commerce clause of the United States Constitution.

The scope of our review in this case is limited to a determination of whether the decision of the Supervisor is authorized by law. Section 311.700, subsection 2.

Since our decision in Austin v. State, 10 Mo. 591 (1847) it has been the established law of this state '* * * that no one has a natural or primary right to * * * sell * * * intoxicating liquors, in any quantity, in this state, but such occupation can only be pursued when the person who desires to engage therein first procures a license from the proper authorities of the state authorizing him to do so * * *; that the liquor traffic is not a lawful business, except as authorized by express legislation of the state; that no person has the natural or inherent right to engage therein; that the liquor business does not stand upon the same plane, in the eyes of the law, with other commercial occupations * * *; (that) it is placed under the ban of law, and it is therefore differentiated from all other occupations, and is thereby separated or removed from the natural rights, privileges, and immunities of the citizen.' State v. Parker Distilling Co., 236 Mo. 219, 139 S.W. 453 (1911) at l.c. 461 and cases there cited; State v. Wipke, 345 Mo. 283, 133 S.W.2d 354 (en banc 1939) at l.c. 359; State v. Quinn, 426 S.W.2d 917, 921(4) (Mo.App.1968); Milgram Food Stores, Inc. v. Ketchum, 384 S.W.2d 510, 514(4) (Mo.1964). The state regulates and controls the sale of intoxicating liquor by requiring a license as a prerequisite of the right to engage in the business ⁴ and the authority to issue and receive a license is bounded by the statutes authorizing it and cannot be enlarged by judicial decision.

Section 311.090 authorizes the...