Case ID: okla_28/html/0429-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "WIELIAMS, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

BINSWANGER et al. v. STANFORD et al.
    
    No. 759.
    Opinion Filed March 21, 1911.
    (114 Pac. 621.)
    INTOXICATING LIQUORS — Sales—Action for Price — Defenses. M. & B., a firm composed of John Muño and T. C. Bowes, as such being licensed retail liquor dealers, under a firm also styled M. & B., composed of J. S. as well as M. & B., though not licensed retail liquor dealers, and not authorized to retail liquors, B. & Bro. sold liquor to the latter firm, with the knowledge that they wetre unauthorized under the law to retail such liquors, but that they would retail said liquors contrary to law. Held, that B. & Bro. are not entitled to recover therefor, as such contract was-against public policy.
    (Syllabus by the Court.)
    
      Error from District Court, Custer County; Jas. B. Tolbert, Judge..
    
    Action by Simon Binswanger and others against Jeff Stanford and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs bring error.
    Affirmed.
    
      A. J. Welch, for plaintiffs in error.
    
      M. L. Holcombe, for defendant in error.
   WIELIAMS, J.

From the facts as uleaded and admitted in the demurrer, it appears that the defendants in error, Muño and. Bowes, prior to the erection of the state, were licensed as retail liquor dealers, at Clinton, Oklahoma Territory, but that the defendant in error, Jeff Stanford, though not such licensee, with them as a silent member of such firm, conducted such retail liquor establishment. Under such license said Muño and Bowes were authorized to retail liquor, but said Stanford was not.

The plaintiffs having sold such liquors to the defendants for the purpose of being retailed, with the evident knowledge that such liquors would be sold contrary to law, the contract being against public policy, no recovery could be had thereon. Therefore the separate demurrer of each of the defendants was properly sustained. Stanard v. Sampson et ux., 23 Okla. 13, 99 Pac. 796; Citizens National Bank of Chickasha v. Mitchell et al., 24 Okla. 488, 103 Pac. 720; Ruemmeli v. Cravens, 13 Okla. 342, 74 Pac. 908; Bass v. Smith et al., 12 Okla. 485, 71 Pac. 628; Garst v. Love et al., 6 Okla. 46, 55 Pac. 19; Kelly v. Courter et al., 1 Okla. 277, 30 Pac. 372; Bowman et al. v. Phillips et al., 41 Kan. 364. 21 Pac. 230, 3 L. R. A. 631, 13 Am. St. Rep. 292.

The judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

All the Justices concur.