Town of Cantril v. Sainer
| Decision Date | 14 June 1882 |
| Citation | 12 N.W. 753,59 Iowa 26 |
| Parties | TOWN OF CANTRIL v. SAINER |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Van Buren District Court.
THE plaintiff is an incorporated town under the general incorporation law of the State. The defendant is the agent and clerk of a joint stock company which was organized to maintain a "social club" where the members thereof could provide for their own use, wine and beer, and such articles of food as seemed to be desirable. The property belonged jointly to the members of the club, and any member had the right at any time to withdraw all or any part of his stock therefrom. The articles kept by the club were subject to delivery to the members thereof upon their order, The defendant was arrested, tried and convicted before the mayor of the town for a violation of an ordinance which prohibited such associations or clubs, and provided penalties for sales of intoxicating liquors by any officer or agent of such associations or by any other person. Upon a trial he was convicted. He appealed to the District Court where he was again convicted, and he now appeals to this court.
REVERSED.
Lea & Wherry, for appellant.
Work & Brown, for appellee.
That the authorities of the town were authorized to prohibit the sale of such intoxicating liquors as are not prohibited by the statutes of the State, cannot be disputed. And that sales through a "social club" are violations of the law and may be prohibited by a proper ordinance, must be conceded. State v. Mercer, 32 Iowa 405. But when a conviction is sought under an ordinance of the town, it must be by such an enactment as reasonably and fairly accords with the law authorizing municipal corporations to enact and enforce ordinances The ordinance in question in this case prohibits sales of all kinds of intoxicating liquors including wine and beer and brandy peaches, by any association of persons, or by any person. So far as the prohibition extends to liquors other than vinous and malt the ordinance is invalid, because the town has no power to pass and enforce it. New Hampton v. Conroy, 57 Iowa 498. It is true, that, as the defendant in this case was prosecuted for selling beer, the ordinance, so far as it prohibited the sale of beer, may, under the authority of Santo v. The State, 2 Iowa 165, and other cases, be held to be valid as prohibiting the sale of liquors not prohibited by the law of the State. But...
To continue reading
Request your trial