Texas Liquor Control Bd. v. Longwill
Decision Date | 22 June 1965 |
Docket Number | No. 7639,7639 |
Citation | 392 S.W.2d 725 |
Parties | TEXAS LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD, Appellant, v. Robert E. LONGWILL, d/b/a Club Apache, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Waggoner Carr, Atty. Gen., Howard M. Fender and Brady S. Coleman, Asst. Attys. Gen., Austin, for appellant.
Horace G. Goodrich, Dallas, for appellee.
This is an appeal from the judgment rendered by a district court in a proceeding to set aside the order of the Administrator of the Texas Liquor Control Board cancelling a private club registration permit. The Texas Liquor Control Board's second motion for rehearing is granted and both opinions of their court heretofore filed are withdrawn and the following opinion ordering reversal and rendition of the trial court judgment is substituted.
The Administrator of the Texas Liquor Control Board on the 14th day of April, 1964, following a hearing, ordered the permit of Club Apache canceled. An appeal from this action of the Administrator was perfected to a district court of Dallas County. In the course of the District Court hearing the Judge presiding said: At the end of the hearing a decree was entered 'that the Administrator's order canceling the license and privilege to do business of plaintiff * * *, is a nullity, and * * * said action of the administrator of the Liquor Control Board of the State of Texas be and it is hereby set aside and held for naught'.
The Texas Legislature in 1961 created a regulatory and licensing system for private clubs where alcoholic beverages are stored and consumed by an act which is codified as Article 666-15(e) of the Texas Liquor Control Act (Vernon's Ann.Texas Penal Code). The directions pertaining to review on appeal contained in Subdivision 7a of the Article appear to be in conflict. The subdivision provides that on appeal from the Texas Liquor Control Board's (or its Administrator's) 1 order canceling a permit trial in the District Court shall be de novo under the rules regulating ordinary civil suits, that the court will consider only such evidence as would be proper if the case on appeal was one appearing in the first instance in the district court, and that the Substantial Evidence Rule shall have no application in the proceedings of the district court. These directions clearly command that 'a full civil trial on the facts as well as the law' will be had in the district court, in the sense that a de novo trial is defined in such case as Zurich General Accident & Liability Ins. Co. v. Rodgers, 128 Tex. 313, 97 S.W.2d 674 (1936); S. Shultz & Bro. v. W. S. Lempert, 55 Tex. 273 (1881); and Lone Star Gas Co. v. State, 137 Tex. 279, 153 S.W.2d 681 (1941).
However, paragraph (d) of Subdivision 7a reading as follows: 'The order, decision or ruling of the Board of Administrator may be suspended or modified by the District Court pending a trial on the merits, but the final judgment of the District Court shall not be modified or suspended pending appeal' assumes and impliedly directs that the orders of the Board or Administrator are to continue in effect during the appeal process unless suspended or modified by the District Court pending a trial on the merits. Giving effect to this provision is inconsistent with a trial de novo as just discussed according to Southern Canal Co. v. State Board of Water Engineers, 159 Tex. 227, 318 S.W.2d 619 (1958), where Chief Justice Calvert said: Very recently in Chemical Bank & Trust Co. v. Falkner, Tex., 369 S.W.2d 427 (1963), citing Southern Canal Co. supra as authority, it was said: .
These incompatible directions of Subdivision 7a appear to be equally material and seem to require the district court when hearing the appeal to treat the order of the Board of Administrator as being simultaneously both valid and null. In this case is the de novo trial in the District Court to be one in which the district court examines the proof before it to decide whether or not the evidence reasonably supports the Administrator's order cancelling Club Apache's private club registration permit, or is the trial to be novo as that term is defined in Zurich General Accident & Liability Ins. Co. v. Rodgers, 128 Tex. 313, 97 S.W.2d 674? A solution is to be found in the approach suggested in Scott v. Texas State Board of Medical Examiners, Tex., 384 S.W.2d 686 (1964), where it is said: 'The validity of a full de novo appeal requirement turns on the nature of the act of the administrative agency contemplated by the statute to which the appeal requirement refers.'
Before enactment of Art. 666-15(e) in 1961 the courts on several occasions held that cancellation of a Liquor Control Board Permit by the Board or its Administrator was an administrative function, and that on appeal from the agency proceeding to the District Court the reasonableness of the order was the question to be determined. Review of the agency order in the District Court, these cases hold, is governed by the 'Substantial evidence Rule', that is, the evidence adduced in the reviewing court is to be examined to determine if it reasonably supports the order in question. See Texas Liquor Control Board v. Warfield, 110 S.W.2d 646 (Tex.Civ.App.1937 no writ); Texas Liquor Control Board v. Jones, 112 S.W.2d 227 (Tex.Civ.App.1937 no writ); Texas Liquor Control Board v Lanza, 129 S.W.2d 1153 ( ); Lowe v. Texas Liquor Control Board, 255 S.W.2d 252 (Tex.Civ.App.1952 no writ); and Texas Liquor Control Board v. Raspante, 308 S.W.2d 136 (Tex.Civ.App.1957 no writ). In State v. Bush, 151 Tex. 606, 253 S.W.2d 269 (1952), a case where application for renewal of a retailer's permit to sell wine and beer had been denied, the Supreme Court said:
(Emphasis added).
Subdivisions 7 and 10 of Art. 666-15(e) lists the grounds upon which the Board may cancel or suspend private club registration permits. Subdivisions 7 reads:
'(a) Sold, offered for sale, purchased or held title to any liquor whatsoever so as to constitute an open saloon as defined in Section 3 of the Texas Liquor Control Act.
'(b) Refused to allow any authorized agent or representative of the Texas Liquor Control Board or any peace officer to come upon the club premises for the purposes of inspecting alcoholic beverages stored on said premises or investigating compliance with this Act or any provision of the Texas Liquor Control Act.
'(c) Refused to furnish the Board or its agent or representatives when requested any information pertaining to the storage, possession, serving or consumption of alcoholic beverages upon club premises.
'(d) Peritted or allowed any alcoholic beverages stored on club premises to be served or consumed at any place other than on the club premises.
'(e) Failed to maintain an adequate building at the address for which said Private Club Registration Permit was issued.
'(f) Caused, permitted or allowed any member of a club in a dry area to store any liquor on club premises except under the locker system.
'(g) Caused, permitted or allowed any person to consume or be served any alcoholic beverages on the club premises at any time on Sunday between the hours of 1:15 a. m. and 1:00 p. m., or any other day at any time between the hours of 12:15 a. m. and 7:00 a. m.
'(h) Violated any provision of the Texas Liquor Control Act or this Act.'
while Subdivision 10 is in this language, to-wit:
'Any permittee who violates or assists, aids or abets any violation of this Act or any provision thereof shall subject such permit to suspension or cancellation in accordance with the provisions of the Texas Liquor Control Act.'
This, Subdivision 10, can refer only to Art. 666-12 of the Texas Liquor Control Act, empowering the Board to cancel or suspend permits when it is found that any of a long list of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Com'n v. Macha
...under the substantial evidence rule, or even a hybrid type of trial, in the same suit) with Texas Liquor Control Board v. Longwill, 392 S.W.2d 725, 729 (Tex.Civ.App.--Texarkana 1965, writ dism'd) (Board's cancellation procedure in cases where continued operation is inimical to public health......
-
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Com'n v. Big Country Club, 4605
...supported by substantial evidence. Jones v. Marsh, 148 Tex. 362, 224 S.W.2d 198 (1949); Texas Liquor Control Board v. Longwill, 392 S.W.2d 725 (Tex.Civ.App.--Texarkana 1965, writ dism.); Texas Liquor Control Board v. Armstrong, 300 S.W.2d 146 (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio 1957, writ ref'd.); T......
-
Texas Vending Com'n v. Headquarters Corp., 12096
...writ ref'd), Chemical Bank & Trust Company v. Falkner, 369 S.W.2d 427 (Tex.1963), and Texas Liquor Control Board v. Longwill, 392 S.W.2d 725 (Tex.Civ.App.1965, writ dism'd). In Davis, supra, the Texas Urban Renewal Law, Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann . art. 1269l--3, was involved. The issue in that c......
-
Morgan v. Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
...order of the Board or Administrator under the Texas Liquor Control Act. This court decided in Texas Liquor Control Board v. Longwill, 392 S.W.2d 725 (Tex.Civ.App. Texarkana 1965, writ dism'd) that subdivision 7a (the trial de novo provision) was unconstitutional because it violated the sepa......