Case Name: Petition of Conway
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1885-10-05
Citations: 1 Sadler 43
Docket Number: 
Parties: Petition of Conway.
Judges: 
Reporter: Cases in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania; being those cases not designated to be reportedÉ
Volume: 1
Pages: 43–44

Head Matter:
Petition of Conway.
A court of quarter sessions has the power, in the exercise of a sound dis■cretion, to deny an application for a wholesale liquor license, without assigning any reasons.
(Decided October 5, 1885.)
Certiorari to the Quarter Sessions of Dauphin County, to re■view a denial of a petition for a license to sell liquor.
Affirmed.
George Kunkel for petitioner.
11. M. Gray don, counsel for Citizens’ Association, was heard :as amicus curioe, in opposition.
Cited in Donoghue’s License, 5 Pa. Super. Ct. 13, 40 W. N. C. 445; 'Dobernick’s License, 5 Lane. L. Rev. 250; McBride’s Application, 7 Pa. Co. •Ct. 77; Doberneck’s License, 5 Pa. Co. Ct. 454. Affirmed in 1 Pa. Super. Ct. 637; Brewers’ & Distillers’ License, 5 Pa. Co. Ct. 136; Re MicBride, 4 Del. <Co. Rep. 73.
Note. — Since the act of June 9, 1891 (P. L. 257), the court has the same ■discretion in granting wholesale, as retail, licenses, except that it is not to pass upon the necessity therefor. Kleminski’s License, 164 Pa. 231, 30 Atl. 301; Eeiger’s License, 1 Pa. Dist! B. 461, 11 Pa. Co. Ct. 401, 9 Lane. L. Bev. 211, 8 Montg. Co. L. Bep. 89; Gemas’s License, 169 Pa. 43, 32 Atl. 88; Doberneck’s Appeal, 1 Pa. Super. Ct. 99; Ee Doylestown Distilling Co. 6 Pa. Super. Ct. 87, 41 W. N. C. 313. It has been held that the court cannot arbitrarily refuse the license without an expression of opinion, where no remonstrance is filed, and the fitness of the applicant has been certified to by many qualified voters. Johnson’s License, 156 Pa. 322, 26 Atl. 1066; Winder’s License, 24 Pa. Co. Ct. 90.

Opinion:
Per Curiam:
We deem it unnecessary to answer, in detail, the able argument of the counsel for the plaintiff. Much must be left to the discretion of the court to which an application is made for license to sell liquor. Nothing is shown in this case to prove that discretion was not reasonably and properly exercised.
As to discretion as to granting liquor licenses in general, see editorial note to Sherlock v. Stuart, 21 L. B. A. 580.
Judgment affirmed.