Thielen v. Kostelecky
Decision Date | 29 August 1939 |
Docket Number | No. 6599.,6599. |
Parties | THIELEN v. KOSTELECKY et al., City Commission. |
Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court.
1. The power to regulate a business implies authority to prescribe reasonable rules and regulations and conditions upon which such business may be conducted or permitted.
2. The power “to regulate the retail sale of alcohol and alcoholic beverages,” which
the Liquor Control Act, Ch. 259, Laws 1937, confers upon the governing body of a City, vests authority in such governing body to prescribe reasonable rules concerning the premises where a retail liquor store is to be operated, and such body may refuse to issue a license where the premises described in the application for the license does not comply with, and falls below, the prescribed standard.
3. The power “to regulate the retail sale of alcohol and alcoholic beverages,” which the Liquor Control Act confers upon the governing body of a City, vests such governing body with power to fix, by ordinance, a reasonable limit on the number of retail liquor licenses to be issued, and thus limit the number of retail liquor stores that may be operated in the City at any one time.
Appeal from District Court, Stark County; Harvey J. Miller, Judge.
Mandamus proceeding by J. A. Thielen against William Kostelecky and others, as members of the City Commission of the City of Dickinson, Stark County, N.D., to compel the defendants to issue to the plaintiff a license to engage in business in the City of Dickinson as a retailer of alcohol and alcoholic beverages. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the defendants appeal.
Reversed, and proceeding ordered dismissed.
J. W. Sturgeon, of Dickinson, and C. L. Foster, of Bismarck, for appellants.
Murtha & Murtha, of Dickinson, for respondent.
The plaintiff instituted this mandamus proceeding in the District Court of Stark County to compel the City Commission of the City of Dickinson to issue to him a license to engage in business in the City of Dickinson as a retailer of alcohol and alcoholic beverages (as defined by Chapter 259, Laws 1937). After hearing, the trial court ordered that a peremptory writ of mandamus issue, directed to the defendants and ordering them to forthwith issue a license to the plaintiff. The defendants have appealed to this Court from the decision of the District Court.
The facts necessary to an understanding of the issues presented on this appeal are substantially as follows:
The Liquor Control Act of this State, Ch. 259, Laws 1937, defines alcohol and alcoholic beverages to “mean and include any alcoholic, spirituous, vinous, fermented, malted, or other liquor which contains more than four percentum (4%) of alcohol by weight.” Idem Sec. 2. It provides that:
“Any person engaging in the retail sale of alcohol and alcoholic beverages as herein defined must first procure from the governing body of the City or Village, wherein the said business is to be conducted, a license, the fee therefor to be not less than Two Hundred ($200.00) Dollars, or more than One Thousand ($1,000.00) Dollars, to be determined by the governing body of such City or Village; and any person desiring to engage in the retail sale of alcohol and alcoholic beverages at a place other than in the incorporated limits of a City or Village must first procure a license from the County Commissioners at [of] the County in which such business is to be conducted, which license fee shall not be less than Two Hundred ($200.00) or more than One Thousand ($1,000.00) Dollars, to be determined by the said Board of County Commissioners; provided that the fee for such license shall be the same to each individual within each of the said political sub-divisions respectively; provided further that such license shall not be transferable, except to the executors or administrators of a deceased license holder.
It is further provided that such retail license shall not permit the sale at any one time to any person of an amount greater than five wine gallons.” Idem Sec. 5.
The Act prescribes a tax on alcohol and alcoholic beverages, establishes the mode of collection of such tax and provides for the distribution of the proceeds of such tax. Idem Sections 7, 8, 9. It also prescribes a penalty for the violation of the provisions of the Act. Idem Sec. 14.
Section 12 of the Act provides: “There is hereby conferred upon the governing bodies of Cities and Villages, and * * the Board of County Commissioners, within their respective jurisdictions, the authority to revoke licenses for cause, and to regulate the retail sale of alcohol and alcoholic beverages, subject to review by the Courts of this State.”
After the Liquor Control Act had become effective, the City Commission of the City of Dickinson adopted an ordinance which, in part, provided as follows:
The plaintiff, Thielen, applied to the City Commission of Dickinson for a retail liquor dealer's license. The premises described in the application, where the retail liquor business was to be conducted, consists of a portion of a building fronting upon an alley and the only entrance to the proposed place of business is a door opening upon the alley. There are no other doors in the proposed place of business at all. The alley is eighteen feet wide. On the north side of the alley, across from the door of the proposed place of business, there is located a telephone or electric power transmission pole, and on the south side of the alley, and in front of the premises where the proposed retail liquor business is proposed to be carried on, there is another telephone or electric power transmission pole. Photographs were submitted in evidence showing the alley and the building in which the business is proposed to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Hewlett v. Womach
... ... Wallace v ... Woods, 340 Mo. 452, 102 S.W.2d 91. (6) City can limit ... the number of licenses. Thielen v. Kostelecky, 124 ... A.L.R. 820, and note at p. 826. (7) The fixing by ordinance ... of a reasonable number of licenses that can be issued is ... ...
-
Mayor & Common Council of City of Prescott v. Randall
... ... direct, rule, govern, method,-ize, arrange, and restrain ... These principles ... [196 P.2d 482] ... are enunciated in Thielen v. Kostelecky, 69 N.D ... 410, 287 N.W. 513, 124 A.L.R. 820; State v. City Council ... of City of Libby, 107 Mont. 216, 82 P.2d 587; Perry ... ...
-
City of Duluth v. Cerveny
...liquor traffic is a type of business peculiarly subject not only to state but to local regulation. In Thielen v. Kostelecky, 69 N.D. 410, 416, 287 N.W. 513, 516, 124 A.L.R. 820, the court said: "* * * The liquor traffic is one properly subject to governmental control, and the retail liquor ......
-
Gartland v. Talbott
...587; Alamogordo Imp. Co. v. Prendergast, 45 N.M. 40, 109 P.2d 254; In re Jorgensen, 75 Neb. 401, 106 N.W. 462; Thielen v. Kostelecky, 69 N.D. 410, 287 N.W. 513, 124 A.L.R. 820; Garonzik v. State, 50 Tex.Cr.R. 533, 100 S.W. 374; 48 C.J.S., Intoxicating Liquors, § 213; Annotation 124 A.L.R. 8......