Case Name: Commonwealth v. Hall
Court: Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia
Jurisdiction: Virginia
Decision Date: 1851-12
Citations: 8 Gratt. 588
Docket Number: 
Parties: *Commonwealth v. Hall.
Judges: 
Reporter: Virginia Reports
Volume: 49
Pages: 685–686

Head Matter:
*Commonwealth v. Hall.
December Term, 1851.
Intoxicating Liquors — License to Sell — Right oí Partners — Case at Bar. — A license to one man to keep a tavern at his house in a village, will not authorize another who formed a partnership with the first in the sale of the spirituous liquors which the first was authorized to sell under his license, to sell liquors at a Rouse on the same lot and within the same enclosure with the tavern.
This was an indictment in the Circuit court of Gilmer county at its September term for 1850, against Hannibal Hall, for selling by retail ardent spirits without a license. The first count in the indictment charged the selling to be drank at the place where sold; the second charged it not to be drank where sold.
The parties agreed the facts, and submitted the question of law arising thereon to the Court. The facts were, that on the 29th of May 1849, the County court of Gilmer granted a license to Thomas Marshall to keep an ordinary at the house where he was .then living in the town of Glenville, until the May term of the County court 1850. Under this license Marshall commenced and kept an ordinary: the liquors were kept, sold anjl drank in a small building on the same lot, and in the same enclosure in which the main building was situated, and about ten feet from it. On the 8th of December 1849, Marshall and the defendant, by an agreement under seal, formed what is termed in the agreement a partnership in the bar attached to the ordinary, by which, in consideration of the amount that Marshall had paid for the license to keep an ordinary and for the rent of the small building, the defendant bound himself to furnish and keep constantly on hand a supply of liquors suitable for the customers of said ordinary: And the profits were to be divided in proportion to the sums advanced by each party.
*On the 1st of March 1850, the County court, with the consent of Marshall, transferred his license to Stephen W. Ratcliff, who had rented and removed to the property occupied by Marshall as an ordinary. On the 11th of April Ratcliff and the defendant entered into an agreement in all respects like that between Marshall and the defendant; and on the 12th day of April the defendant sold liquors by retail, at the small building above described as being the place where Marshall had kept and sold liquors.
With the consent of the defendant the Circuit court adjourned to this Court the following question:
What judgment ought this Court to give on the facts agreed?
See monographic note on “Intoxicating Liquors” appended to Thon v. Com., 31 Gratt. 887.

Opinion:
By the Court.
Judgment ought to be given against the defendant for 30 dollars and the costs.