The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1894-06-05

-
Rights of Retail Liquor Dealers.
An interesting legal point has just
been decided by the supreme court, in
a case coming up to it from Philadel-
phia. and known as the Germantown
Brewing company, appellant, against
Edward Booth. The suit was origin
ally brought by the brewing company
to recover on a note of So, 900, which
amount has been advanced by Thomas
Clements, president OF the company, to
start Booth in the saloon business. A
collateral contract was entered into at
the time in which Booth agreed to re.
pay the loan in monthly installmsnts
of 5000. and in default Of payment, to
assign his business and transfer the
license to any person the brewing COM
pany might designate. Judge Gordon,
in the lower court. held that this agree
ment was contrary to the provisions Of
the Brooks law, making the brewing
company an interested party in the re.
t~ailer's business, and that it was con-
trary to public policy. His language
was particularly severe. He said:
One Of the most salutary provisions OF
the license law is that which separates the
interests of the manufacturers and whole
sale dealers in Intoxicating liquors from
that Of retail sellers. The applicant for a
retail license is required to declare that
he is not interested in the profits Of my
other place where such liquors are kspG
and sold, and that M one else is or will 20
permitted to be pecuniarily interested u
the profits Of the business for which Srs
applicant applies during the time for
which q license Is asked. The agreement
between the parties IN the present case
was intended to defeat and violate this
wholesome provision of the law. The
brewing company was advancing mon ey
to embark the retail dealer in business,
and in the event Of his failing to pay the
money was to become surreptitiously and
unlawfully the owner of the license and
was to carry OF the business. BY this
agreement both parties were deceiving and
perpetrating n fraud upon the court and
colluding to violate the law. 1t does not
require any argument to show that such
an agreement was against public policy,
and therefore void. The present iudC-
ment was a vital part Of this agreement
and was given TO enable the brewing COM
pany to enforce it. The judgment, there
fore, falls under the like condemnation.
Upon appeal to the higher tribunal,
this finding has been reversed. Justice
McCollum, in delivering the ruling of
the supreme court, said:
A loan made to enable the borrower to
carry on q lawful business is not against
public policy nor violative of any statute.
The sale of liquors by q licensed dealer in
them is such n business. II he removes
from the house in which he was licensed to
conduct the business, he may consent that
his license be transferred to the person
who succeeds in the occupancy of it, and
the quarter sessions court may transfer
the license to such person on his compli-
ance with the provisions OF the law IN re-
lation to the transfer Of licenses In certain
designated cases, 1t matters not in what
form the consent of the license is given; an
assignment OF the license is nothing more
than his expression Of consent that
the license may be transferred to
to his assignee by the authority grant
ing the same. AS his consent is essential
to the transfer, there is nothing unlawful
it it. All that the assignee acquires by it
is the privilege of applying for the transfer
to the court having jurisdiction to make
1t. 1t confers no right on him to sell
liquors, and II the court transfers
the license to him, his business under it y
limited TO the place In Shich his predeces.
sor carried on a like business. We think,
therefore, thai the defendants agreement