OFFICE OF THE A’ITORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

GROVER SELLERS 

AITOINEV OlNEIIl. 

Bon. Bert Ford, Administrator 

Texas Liquor Control Board 

Austin, Texas 

Bear )Er, Ford: 

Ke 

contained in 

Opinion Ho. O-7528 

Re: Proper way to measure the dishave given csreful consideratio 

the following letter: 

'The quest%on arises 

of fIlS8SlWi3& the distan 

of th6 Educational Buii 

Church in Wichita Fall 

theBrownBuildi 

Wichita Fall& '4' 

mitt&operate 8 

along the property 

om frontdoorto 

e relative locations of these two 

mariner.... which the City Clerk 

nts should be made is enclosed 

nsideration. - 

should be made as follows: Starting at the west 

front door of the Education Building, (Door *Br, as _ 

shown on the &at) lneasure 34 feet North to the corner of the Edkational Building; thence East 44.2 

feet to an alley; thence North 153.1 feet to 9th 
Eon, Bert Ford - Page 2 

Street; thence across alley 48.7 feet to the front 

door of the proposed liquor store.as shown on the 

plat 

of 28 

IA' 8t 909 9th Street), mald.ng a distance 

'the ap$ica.tAs, namely L. L:Blackwe~ and )rl. S. 

Bailey, who reek the liquor permit contend that the 

measur8m8nts should be made as follows: Startin at 

the.west front door.of the Educational Building 7 door 

'B' as shown on the plat), measure in a straight line 

west to the line of Travis Strelt; thence North to 

9th Street; thence East along the south line of 9th 

Street to the front door of the proposed liquor etore 

(door 'kc 86 shown by the pla;) at 909 9-h Street. 

5::: dista~2.8 would be 8 great deal, more then 300 

. 

trThe Board desires your opinion on the pro r 

measurements of the distance from the west fron E" door 

of the Education Building to the front door of the proyei. & uor store. 

ich of the roposed routes 5.s the correct 

r other word8, the Board wants 

e distance between the two front 

From your queetlon we presume the City Council of f;icNta 

Falls ha8 passed an ordinance‘reguJ.atin& the location where intoxiC&.ting liquors i?x?' be sold under the protisicns of Article 6625a of 

the Penal Code, 4 his krticle authorizes the city to "prohi'cit the 

sale of alcoholic beverages by any dealer, where the place of business 

of any such dealer is within 300 feet of any church, public school or 

public hospital, the measureamnts to be along the property lines of 

the street fronts and from front door to front door and"‘in direct 

lines across intersectioos where they occur." 

The plat which 8ccompanies 

f 

our request reveals that the 

Educational Building of the First Chr stian Church Is located on the 

alley running from 9th Street to 10th Street; that the proposed liquor 

store is on 9th Street; that the distance from the pro 

store to the side of the alley on which the Education ar 

sed liquor 

Church building is located is 48.7 feet; that from 9th Street to the corner of 

the Educational Ejuilding on the alley is 159.1 feet; that-from the 

said corner of the Educational Building it is 44.2 feet to the 1:. :I'. 

corner of said building; thence 34 feet south to the front door of the 

Educational Bdlding marked "3" on the plat. This makes a total dist,ar,ce of 256 feet from the proposed liquor store marked "4" to the 
34s 

Hon. Bert Ford - Page 3 

front door of the Bdxcational Building narked "Be. 

hss 

A8 revealed by the above-quoted statute, the Le&.slature 

If t E 

rovlded that the 8ale of alcoholic beverages nay bc prohibited 

e 

church. 

place of business of say such dealer is within 300 feet of 8 

It then &ives the yardstick for ~3e8s1~ring said distance. 

Admittedly, the*prOpOaed liquor store is tith5.n 207.8"feet 

of the church in e&ion, &ere said church fronts or faces on the . 

measurerents alone; the property line of 9th Street, 

alotrectly across th8 alley, and then following the property Line 

the alley dam to b:-12 ckurch. Tt~c sktate theri pl-oi*ides l&t 

the ineasurementa crmt be fro% the property line of the street Sront 

to the front door of the church 2nd the front ch,or of the yqmr;od 

l&:&or StOl:8. ::8 are 0,' the opiufon that the church faces ILpon or 

fronts UFI the zlley, and if this construction is true, then under 

the law the rdeaaurezent would be from the corner of the church building on the alley to the door or entrance into the Educational~Building 

of said chuz%h. 

'In the case of \i&ters is. CoLlFw 70 ktl. 384 a Eew Jersey 

c8se, the court was reqilired to pas8 upon t&8 question oh %%at was the 

front line of a comer lot which faced 50 feet on Atlantic (the m&n) 

street and ren b8ck ll3 feet on Montpelier to an alley. The Court 

used the foU.ckJing kmguage: 

WOw 8 lot fronts on a street when it lies free 

to face Nith, or opposite to, a street. The fro& property line of any street is a boundary v:hich dclitits 

private property lying alow that street fro3 the street 

itself. Both at Atlantic avenu8 and I+iont lier avenue 

this condition of affairs elEi8t8.' There r s therefore 

on both streets a front property line Of defendazt's 

lot. *The front Of the lot,' remarked judge Driller in 

hi8 opinion delivered 5n.the .c88e of City of Des Xoines 

v. Dorr, 33. 1~8, &, *is very well known to be that 

part of the seme which faces a street or streets. It 

IQay front on one street only1 or it cay front on tW0. 

:..hat is the front of a,--lot, 1.5 determinable by its 

facix upon a public street or streets.' Xn'this cate 

the lot faces upon two public streets, and it was held 

in the last-mentioned c&se that a corner lot fronted On 

b&h of the streets v;?iicL famed the angle." 
346 

Hon. Bert Ford - PRO 4 

east 44;2 feet to the alley on which said building; fronts or faces. 

The case of Stubbs v. Texas Liquor Control Board, 166 S.K. 

(2) 178 (error ref.) the &urt discussed at lexth the h-ay the 

meesuremcnt should be JX& in deter&&m;; the distame from the 

church door to the door of the liquor stora. 

The court reeffizzed the doctrine that has been announced 

a nmber of tiles that any door used for eatrance to the church Is 

wi.t,hSn the cmteqlation of t3e kti a fro& door. In saiclc cxx2 the 

ascdS.e?t Stubbs took the '~ositiorr tkt th~..xe&s~re;icat i:Jst be cloiy; 

t&k street lines to t!le &eet intersection, then aross the street 

intersoc%ion do%'! oPnx(te the z.ir. entr;,tce to the &U?uIck,, md 

thence i.a a direct line u? to said door. Cn the other hand, the 

Texas Liquor Control BOWG took the position chat there xere three 

or four other nays, each less tw 333 feet, & which to xeaswrc the 

distance to tlro Other doors, one enteri% the Sunday School roox and 

one enter- the pastorvs study, uhich was in the church. It took 

the position that the most direct way oze could Co from the liquor 

store to the nearest of said doors could be used. The Appellate _ 

Court held that each and all of the methods wested by the Texas 

Liquor Control Eoard were correct, and the court then used the followislme: 

n&4 Article 666-2 of the Liquor Control Act 

provides: *This entire i.ct shall be deemed an exercise of tse police porter of the State for the.protectiorr of the welfare, health, peace; tenpersnce, and 

safety of the pea lo of the State, and all its Provisiona shall be f lberally construed for the accomplis?~-xx% of that purpose'; and the gener.zl rule of 

neaswexent relatiq to tez:rito within which a..saloon 

ma 

1 

aerate is stated in a note ? n 96 A.L.R. p. ‘778, as 

fo lows: 'The propositioc appears to be established as 

a rule of law thr.t, exc+pt as map be otherwise specifically provided, the distance contexzplated by a statute 

0~ re&c.tiax prohibitin& the GrantinS of a license for 

the sale of intozkxM..3S liquors, or traffic Uerein, within a certain distance of a named institution or place (e. 

5. , c'.xrc‘o -; i- *), :cust be measxred in a straight lice 

. rc;;r;Cr t!;x2 ii-; 53:x other n.anner, such as by the usualiy 

';rz-;cl;C rs::<e o;t the street kir,es.f 
Hon. 

347 

Bert Ford - Page 5 

mensureaent under the rule prescribed for that purpose. 

The meaning generally given by courts to the phrase 

‘froar front door to front door’ i.6 that, any door leading into the church or saloon is a front door; in other 

u10r&s, 

aeve+ 

it is held that a church or saloon nay have 

front dOOr and may face upon two or more atmets; 

and we are of o 

$zI~; ;fhthe E 

inion that 1s the sense in +ich the proiquor Control Act should be ootmtrued. 

., pp. 372-373, the doctrine is stated that 

I* * * in'the case of a corner church, either of two - 

doors lezdiag Eron the respective Intersecting strecta, 

i!?tiO 2 to>:er or vestilmle 3-on &ich one door leads to 

the auditorium, must be regarded as the front entrance 

b-ithin the nz.ming of a statute prohibiting saloons 

Fithin c riven distame fron the front entrance of a 

church, athou& one door day be used nors than the other, 

and may be on the street or. which the church lot technically faces. * * * 137. In applying the rohibition 

against sales near churches, great llber ai ity 1s ..exercised ad the rule of construction usually adopted is 

said co favor the religious iustbtutions and not the 

traffickers in liquors, to the end that the protection 

be extended to all the multifarious denominations and 

societies -irrespective of their particular tenet8 or 

creed, anh no matter with what ceremony or lack of it 

their faith may be evinced. Anp structure used prinalpally for religious worship and Blbla study ia..~naludetl 

although sox~e of its r$o%s a&y be used by socie$#es incidentrkl to the church, f.vn 

In the case of Halluxu v. Texas Liquor Control Board, 166 S.‘i’. 

175, the court held that the prop? r w&y to measure the distance nhen 

crossing the intersection 0 f two streets was to go dl,agonally &cross 

rather than follow the direct route from one street to another, and 

then directly across from that street to the opposite street. In other 

words, the court held that reCardl.ess of the traffic lam, the method 

of *masuring wae to take the storteat route possible from the corner of 

o:?e street zoing to the corner diagonally across said street. 

The statute in qdestior, doe s r.ot call for the church door to 

be 3KJ feet from the door‘ of the saloon aloan property lines, but I-n 

its xe;surezent says t?zt in E:circ fron the liquor store to the ckurch 

tudlcal~, the >ropcrty ?&I;, c< of the street fronts nuet 'be foil-cxed; 

%?:fSl th ci?XTh buFldinz, or the liccor store bnildiq is reskcd, t&l 
. 

. 

348 

iion. Bert Ford - Page 6 

the law contemplates that from the nearest point on the street front 

where the buildings are located, the m%asure~e~t shall be from there 

in the aost direct line to the door entering the church. In the case 

at bar it a wars that the door uarked "Brr is the main entrsnce*into 

the Sunday !I chool or Educational Btiloing and as before stated 

measuring from Boor "B" to the nearest 

on the church building and then going WY 

Int where the alley f&nts 

th the, pro,perty lines to a 

point directly in front of the.door to the propcsed ?-i&or store and' 

then to the door of s4.d 

wzici pl;cc 

storo,L the 

of mm-se, s&$2,3 -tzs tg:y 

d.lstru;ce :m~lc! be 236 feet which, 

the ;,.~0~,:,5'!;2C6..5 zone. 

. 

Geo. Ii. Barcus 

Assistant