OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Texas Liquor Control Board 

iionorable Zert Pord'; Administrator 

Austin, Texas 0-l-J 

opinion No. o- .7073 

Re: May a door or a liquo 

be moved from its aoo 

place in order to be 

than'thrse bun 

a churoh? And 

Mon. 

Dear Sir: 

Your request fbr 

and carefully considered by 

your letter as r0u0w8: 

las pertain to 

If the norbuildin& is within 

the mner or said 

sets -ihe door baok, makranos projeoted rar enough that 

is within three hundred feet or the 

package store or beer parlor, E the permit 

be cancelled? I should like for you to secure 
362 

,HonorabIe Bert Ford - Page 2 

a ruling from the Attorney Oeneralls Oliice on this 

provision, sitice there is a dirreranoe of opinion 

here between the ,oity inspector and the enioroement 

orficsrs.~ 

WYiill you please give ~16 an opinioa oh the above 

desoribed situations. 

*I suggest that the underlined word 'will' be 

changed to 'should' in sc Sar as your opinion 18 concerned." 

Article MM-25a, Vernon's Annotated Penal Code or 

Texas, reads as Sollowst 

"The Comissionerst Court oS any county in the 

territory thereof outside incor~mtad cities and towns 

and the @verning authorities oS any city or town within 

the corporate liaits OS say suoh city or town may prohibit 

the sale OS alooholio beverages by any dealer where the 

plaoe OS business OS any such dealer is within three 

hundred (300) Sect OS shy ahuroh, public school or public 

hospital, the measurements to be along the property lines 

OS the street Sronts and from front door to front door 

and in direct line across intersections whera they oocur.w 

r 

We quote f+rom the ease of Stubbe Y. Texas Liquor Control Board, 106 3. w. 2nd 178, as r0u0ws: 

"The maning generally given by the courts to 

the phrase 'Srom Sront door to front door' is that, 

any door leading into thr, church or saloon ia a Sront 

door; in other words, it is held that a oburoh or saloon 

may have several rront doors and may raoe upon two or 

more streets) . , . , In 15 R, C. L., pp. 372-373, the 

doctrine is stated that . . . . 137. In applying the 

prohibitions against sales hear churches, great llberellty 1s exercised, and the rule oS construction usually 

adopted is said to favor the religious institution, and 

not the traffiokers in liquor . . .* 

The Courts or this State have not passed on a Snot 

situation as set forth in your letter; however, the Supren;e 
363 

Honorable Bert Ford - Pac7.e 3 

Court OS New York in,IlcOl, In re Chsney (72 N. Y, S, 134), under 

4 similar Saot situation, stated as SolLowst 

"The entrance from and to which distance is to 

be computed ror the purpose OS determining what buildings, if any, are within a radius OS 200 feet, Is the 

entrance or opening in the building oooupieA as a saloon. 

Such entrance or openfng in this case is ocntrolling, 

rather than the location oS the door set baok Prom the 

wall in the entrance way." 

In reply to your rirst question, It is our opinion 

that when 4 city has enacted a valiA ordinance prohibiting the 

sale or alcoholic beverages within three hundred (300) feet OS 

any church, publio sohoolor publio hospital, that if the front 

doors OS a proposed liquor store and a church are less than three 

hundred (300) feet apart aooording to the system of measurement 

set Sorth in Article 666-25a oS Vernon's Annotated Penal Code 

as oonstrued in jtubbs v, Texas Liquor Control Board, supra, 

the wner or lessee of such building oannot defeat the very. 

purpose of the ordinance by setting the swung Aoor back, in 

the xanner described In your request, so that it will be more 

than three hundred (300) feet Srom the front door OS the ohurch. 

It would not be proper to issue a permit or license under such 

circu~~stanoes, 

hs we have s.nswereA your first question in the negative, 

we do not believe it is necessary to answer your second question. 

Trusting that the foregoing Sully answers your inquiry, 

we ranain, 

Very truly yours