Case ID: ga_89/html/0781-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Whaley v. The Mayor and Council of Columbus.
    A declaration against a municipal government for revoking the license of a retailer of spirituous liquors and thereby forcing him to withdraw from business and sell out his stock at great loss and damage, the revoking being done illegally, unlawfully and wrongfully, without specifying how it was done or pointing out in what respect the act was illegal or unlawful, or averring that the municipality had no legal power or authority to revoke such license, sets forth no cause of action.
    August 1, 1892.
    Municipal corporation. Liquor license. Before Judge Martin. Muscogee superior court. November term, 1891.
    The action of Whaley against the Mayor & Council of the City of Columbus was dismissed on demurrer, which ruling is excepted to. The declaration alleges that on the first of January, 1890, the plaintiff obtained from the mayor'and council, in consideration of '$250, a license to sell spirituous liquors at retail in that city until the first of July, 1890; that he gave bond and security, according to the city ordinances, for his faithful compliance with the laws of the State and the ordinances of the city council in relation to retailers of spirituous liquors ; that at great expense he complied in full with all State and Federal law, and with each ordinance of the city, for the purpose of retailing spirituous liquor; that he continued to sell at retail until the 22d of April, 1890, when he was arrested by the police of said city and his license to retail was illegally, unlawfully and wrongfully revoked by the defendant; permission being given him to sell his stock of liquors until the 10th of May, 1890 ; and that he was forced to sell and dispose of'his stock at great loss and was damaged in several particulars which are set out.
   Judgment affirmed,.

Ingram & McLester and Thornton & McMiciiael, for plaintiff in error.

J. II. Worrill and T. Y. Crawford, contra.