Case ID: liquor-tax-rep_2/html/0607-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Second Appellate Department,
    December, 1901.
    Reported. 67 App. Dlv. 623.
    Patrick W. Cullinan, as State Commissioner of Excise, Respondent, v. Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, Appellant, Impleaded with William Texter.
    
      Boardman, Platt & Soley, for appellant, Fidelity & Deposit Company.
    There was no breach of the condition of the bond, as the violation occurred at another place than that mentioned in the bond. (Lord Arlington v. Merricke, 2 Saunders, 411; Liverpool WaterWorks v. Atkinson, 6 East., 507; The Kingston Mutual Ins. Co. v. Clark, 33 Barb. 196; The Grand Lodge v. Freifield, &c., 20 Misc. 276.)
    
      Hirsh & Rasquin, for appellant Texter.
    This law, being highly penal, must be strictly construed (Whittaker v. Masterson, 106 N. Y. 277; Bonnell v. Griswold, 80 N. Y. 128; Ulster County Savings Institution v. Young, 161 N. Y. 23; Same v. Ostrander, 163 N. Y. 430; National Mechanics’ Banking Assn. v. Conkling, 90 N. Y. 116; Lyman v. Kurtz, 166 N. Y. 274; Bissell v. Saxton, 66 N. Y. 55; Schofield v. Churchill, 72 N. Y. 565.)
    
      WilUam E. Schenck, for respondent.
    The court rightly directed a verdict for the plaintiff, as it was uncontradicted that the principal personally violated the provisions of the Liquor Tax Law, “ while the business for which such tax certificate ” issued upon the filing of the bond in suit was being carried on, although such violation occurred elsewhere. (Lyman v. Perlmutter, 166 N. Y. 410; Lyman v. Schenck, 37 App. Div. 234; Lyman v. Shenandoah Social Club, 39 App. Div. 459; Matter of Lyman v. Texter, 32 Misc. 210, affd. 59 App. Div. 217; Matter of Michell, 41 App. Div. 271.)
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Goodrich, P. J., Bartlett, Woodward, Hirschberg and Sewell, JJ., concurred.