The Bemidji daily pioneer. [volume] (Bemidji, Minn.) 1904-1971, 1917-05-29

In the aggregate sum of $3,711:15,
on the ground that the authorize
tion OF the issuance of said warrants
BY the city council in refundment
Of payments made for liquor licenses
was without authority of law.
r, It is the rule, supported by the
weight of authority, that license
voluntarily paid with knowledge OF
the law, cannot, in the absence OF
express statutory authority, be re-
covered back.
Roberts v. City of Boise, 1872
Pac. (1daho) so6, and cases
cited.
The Minnesota statute which au-
thorizes refundment in certain cir
cumstances provides, so far as ap-
plicable to this case, (Sec. 1850 q.
s. 1879, that "every liquor license
shall be annulled by operation OF law
by the sale of liquor becoming un-
lawful in the place for which said
license is granted" and that lin such
cases, and in no other, such part
of the license fee as corresponds to
the time such license had yet to run
may be returned" This statute
cannot be held applicable to the case
at bar for the reason that the sale
of liquor in the City of Bemidji did
not BECOME unlawful after the is
suance of licenses. The law was
Just the same when the applications
for licenses were filed and the pay
ments were voluntarily made as it
was at any subsequent date. The
use of the words "becoming unlaw-
full contemplates change In the
law after the license was issued. II
there was no such change the license
was not annulled. s@
It must be assumed, as a matter
of law, that each licensee knew at
the time that he applied for his IL
cense of the treaty of 1855 and OF
its restrictive provisions. The de-
cision in the federal district court
in the Geralds v. johnson case, then
pending on appeal, was no protec-
fion to the licensees. The construc-
ton placed upon the treaty by the
court of last resort was Retrospective
and established the legal effect OF
( the treaty from the time Of its adop-
ton.
= 26 A. & E. Enc, 17s.
IL Cyc., 1853, and cases cited.
Under the admitted facts, am
not impressed with the argument
that Sin equity and good con-
science" the refundment should be
made. The situation is far differ
ent than If the city had revoked the
licenses. Here the city did nothing
whatever to prohibit, or even re-
strict, the licensed business; and
no applications for refundments were
made until after the expirations Of
the licenses. So far as the city
was concerned the licensees enjoyed
the same privileges during the en-
tire periods covered by the licenses
as they did when the applications
were made. After the term of the
licenses had been completed, with
out the municipal authorities at
tempting, in the exercise OF dis
erection, to refund any part of the
money, the transaction was entirely
closed.
The point Is urged that refuna-
ments should be made because the
city violated the spirit, II not the
letter, of the law, in authorizing the
licenses in disregard of the treaty.
! Granting, for argument, that the
city had no legal right to Issue the
licenses, such situation would not
entitle the licensees to refundments,
because it is the settled rule that
zone who loses his money or his
property knowingly engaged In a
contract or transaction which In
wolves his own violations OF a gen
eral law enacted to carry into enect
a public policy, cannot maintain an
action for his loss or his damage
because the acts of others deluded
or persuaded him to believe that
they would continue to violate the
law or to perform an illegal con-
tract"
Levy v. Kansas City, ~ L.
r. A. In. So $50.
SO c.. c. r. 523.
The licensees seeking to recover
back their money fall far within this
rule, and the city council had no
legal right to make the refundments
In question.