Title: MISSISSIPPI STATE TAX COM'N v. Package Store, Inc.

State: mississippi

Issuer: Mississippi Supreme Court

Document:

208 So. 2d 46 (1968) MISSISSIPPI STATE TAX COMMISSION v. PACKAGE STORE, INC. No. 44758. Supreme Court of Mississippi. March 4, 1968. Joe T. Patterson, Atty. Gen., by, John E. Stone, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellant. Stennett, Wilkinson & Ward, E. Grant Tharpe, Jackson, for appellee. ROBERTSON, Justice: The Mississippi State Tax Commission denied the application of Package Store, Inc., for a permit to operate a retail package store for the sale of alcoholic beverages at 1255 North West Street, Jackson, Mississippi. Package Store, Inc., appealed this decision to the Hinds County Chancery *47 Court, which reversed the order of the Commission and remanded the case to it for the issuance of a permit to Package Store, Inc., as applied for. The Commission, thereupon, perfected an appeal to this Court. We reverse the decree of the chancery court and reinstate the order of the State Tax Commission. The Mississippi Legislature, at its 1966 Regular Session, enacted a comprehensive law known as the "Local Option Alcoholic Beverage Control Law," sections 10265-01 through XXXXX-XXX, Mississippi Code 1942 Annotated (Supp. 1966). The purpose and intent of this law is set forth in section 10265-01 in the following clear and positive language: The administration and enforcement of this law is vested in the State Tax Commission, "and for such purpose there is hereby created the Alcoholic Beverage Control Division within and as a part of said Commission." § 10265-08 Miss.Code 1942 Ann. (Supp. 1966). In Section 17 of this Act [Section 10265-17, Mississippi Code 1942 Annotated (Supp. 1966)] the Legislature listed sixteen specific powers, functions and duties, which it granted to the State Tax Commission. The first power enumerated was: "(1) To issue or refuse to issue any permit provided for by this act." In its order denying the issuance of a permit, the Commission reasoned, thusly: The Commission was construing section 10265-18(g), wherein it was instructed and admonished: The property, for which a permit was requested, is located on the corner of North West and Baker Streets, and Mrs. Baker's home, fronting on Baker Street, is six feet from the west line of appellee's building. Section 10265-23 sets forth thirteen other tests which must be answered to the satisfaction of the Commission before a permit can be issued. Subsections (4) and (10) provide: It is very apparent from the enumerated powers, functions, duties, and responsibilities reposed in and imposed upon the State Tax Commission in widely separated parts of the Local Option Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, that it was the intent of the Legislature to grant the Commission wide latitude and discretion in considering and acting upon applications for permits to operate retail liquor stores. The courts have uniformly held that the exceptions in respect to churches and schools should be liberally construed in their favor and strictly against applicants for licenses within the prescribed distance. Schaub's, Inc. v. Dept. of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 153 Cal. App. 2d 858, 315 P.2d 459 (1957); Boys' Clubs of Detroit v. Pakula, 342 Mich. 150, 69 N.W.2d 348, 49 A.L.R.2d 1097 (1955); Fleeman v. Vocelle, 160 Fla. 898, 37 So. 2d 164 (1948); Calvary Presbyterian Church v. State Liquor Authority, 245 App.Div. 176, 281 N.Y.S. 61 (1935); In re Brady, Sup., 106 N.Y.S. 921 (1907); In re Place, 27 App.Div. 561, 50 N.Y.S. 640 (1898). The test to be applied by an appellate court to a decision of a commission or administrative agency is whether such decision is supported by substantial evidence or whether such action is arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable or an abuse of discretion. This rule was announced in very forceful language in Alcorn County, etc. Board of Education v. Parents and Custodians of Students at Rienzi School Attendance Center et al., 251 Miss. 195, 168 So. 2d 814 (1964): This rule has been uniformly followed by this Court. See Barnwell, Inc. v. Sun Oil Co., 249 Miss. 398, 162 So. 2d 635 (1964); Central Electric Power Ass'n v. Hicks, 236 Miss. 378, 110 So. 2d 351, 112 So. 2d 230 (1959); Cobb Bros. Constr. Co. v. Gulf, M. & O.R.R., 213 Miss. 706, 57 So. 2d 570 (1952); and White v. National Old Line Ins. Co., 203 Miss. 752, 34 So. 2d 234 (1948). We think that the order of the State Tax Commission denying the issuance of a permit to appellee is supported by substantial evidence, and is not an arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable action on its part. The Commission did not abuse its discretion in refusing to issue a permit. *49 The judgment of the Chancery Court is, therefore, reversed, and the order of the State Tax Commission reinstated. GILLESPIE, P.J., and JONES, BRADY, and INZER, JJ., concur.