Case ID: mich_367/html/0672-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

NORTHLINE DRUGS #2, INC., v. LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION.
    1. Mandamus—Specially Designated Merchant’s License to Sell Wine and Beer.
    Petition for mandamus to compel issuance of specially designated merchant’s license for sale of wine and beer is dismissed, where decision of Supreme Court shortly before oral argument of ease is recognized by the attorney general as controlling and license has now been issued.
    2. Costs—Mandamus'—Specially Designated Merchant’s License .to Sell Wine and Beer.
    No costs are allowed in mandamus proceeding to compel issuance of license to plaintiff to sell wine and beer as a specially designated merchant on dismissal of petition.
    References for Points in Headnotes
    [1] 34 Am Jur, Mandamus § 184 ei seq.
    
    [2] 34 Am Jur, Mandamus § 393.
    Original mandamus by Nortliline Drugs #2, Inc., a Michigan corporation, against Michigan Liquor Control Commission and its members to compel issuance of specially designated merchant’s license for sale of wine and beer.
    Submitted June 5, 1962.
    (Calendar No. 49,613.)
    On subsequent granting of license, petition for mandamus dismissed September 10, 1962.
    
      Philip Weiss and Jesse R. Baealis, for plaintiff.
    
      Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Eugene Krasieky, Solicitor General, and Thomas H. Healy, 
      
      Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for defendant.
    
      Amicus Curiae:
    
    
      Stanton, Taylor, McGraw & Collison (John W. McGraw, of counsel), for Otto Taylor Construction Company.
   Per Curiam.

In the month preceding oral argu-

ment of this case, this Court decided Kroger Co. v. Liquor Control Commission, 366 Mich 481. In recognition of the controlling applicability of the Kroger Case, the attorney general advised the defendants Liquor Control Commission and its members that a license should be issued to the plaintiff. On July 2, 1962, the commission entered an order approving plaintiff’s application and on July 9, 1962, a license was accordingly issued.

Petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed. No costs.

Carr, C. J., and Dethmers, Kelly, Black, Kavanagh, Souris, Otis M. Smith, and Adams, JJ., concurred.