Title: Sierota v. Scott
Citation: 352 P.2d 671
Docket Number: 19367
State: Colorado
Issuer: Colorado Supreme Court
Date: May 31, 1960

352 P.2d 671 (1960) Simon SIEROTA, Plaintiff in Error, v. Ed S. SCOTT, Mayor, and Councilmen H. R. Braun, L. L. Brownewell, R. N. Graham, E. S. Hill, J. C. Kreiling, N. L. McClellan, Arthur L. Martin, and R. G. Woods, individually and as Mayor and Councilmen In and for the City of Englewood, Defendants in Error. No. 19367. Supreme Court of Colorado. In Department. May 31, 1960. John D. Saviers, Louis F. Pell, Aurora, for plaintiff in error. Joseph W. Esch, Richard N. Graham, Englewood, for defendants in error. SUTTON, Chief Justice. We might label this an exercise in semantics as will more fully hereinafter appear. Sierota had a license from the State of Colorado, issued under C.R.S. `53, 75-1-1 et seq., to sell fermented malt beverages. *672 When it first issued, his place of business was in Arapahoe County outside of the city limits of defendant City of Englewood. Subsequently the area involved was annexed to the city and still later the city council adopted a licensing ordinance (No. 4, Series 1959) which required Sierota, when his previous license expired, to elect whether he would sell fermented malt beverages by the drink or in packages. Faced with the threat of no license at all for his established business Sierota accepted, under duress, a city license restricting him to package sales only. He attacked the ordinance by suit and is here upon supersedeas seeking reversal of a district court decision which upheld the city. He asserts that the city lacks authority to prohibit by ordinance what a state statute permits. In other words, the question is: This question is answered in the negative. The pertinent statutory sections appear in C.R.S. `53, 75-1 and read: The applicable parts of Ordinance No. 4, Series 1959, provide: *673 Though C.R.S. `53, 75-1-1 et seq. do permit municipalities "to make * * * reasonable rules and regulations" for 3.2 beer sales, this is a far cry from any delegation of power to prohibit sales as is done here, if they chose to issue a license in the first place. Forbidding one or the other type of sale is precisely what this ordinance does and is intended to do. That is also precisely what it cannot do under the guise of regulation. See Solomon v. City of Denver, 1898, 12 Colo.App. 179, 55 P. 199; Glendinning v. City and County of Denver, 1911, 50 Colo. 240, 114 P. 652; Ray v. City and County of Denver, 1942, 109 Colo. 74, 121 P.2d 886, 138 A.L.R. 1485; Lynch v. Tilden Produce Co., 1924, 265 U.S. 315, 44 S. Ct. 488, 68 L. Ed. 1034. Only recently this court had occasion to hold an attempt of a city to limit the number of liquor licenses by an ordinance restricting the issuance thereof upon the basis of population rather than upon the needs of the neighborhood and desires of its residents, to be contrary to the state statute. City of Colorado Springs v. Graham, Colo., 352 P.2d 273. In Buddy and Lloyd's Store No. 1, Inc. v. City Council, 1959, 139 Colo. 152, 337 P.2d 389, 391, in reversing a judgment against an applicant this court said in pertinent part: And, City of Canon City v. Merris, 1958, 137 Colo. 169, 323 P.2d 614, held that where the state has adopted a statute on a matter of statewide interest or concern (and licensing liquor, wine or beer sales is such a matter) then the local governmental units are deprived of jurisdiction over such subjects. We add that this is not so however where the state has delegated power such as it has here to cities also to join in regulation. As pointed out above though the express power here granted the city by state statute does not permit or condone complete prohibition of a right granted by statute. Thus the city has improperly attempted to require two licenses where only one is required by the state law. The city urges that under the authority of Gettman v. Board of City Commissioners, 1950, 122 Colo. 185, 221 P.2d 363, and Houpt v. Town of Milliken, 1953, 128 Colo. 147, 260 P.2d 735, this court has upheld regulations similar to the one here challenged. We consider those cases as not in point. They merely upheld what were then deemed to be reasonable regulations as to hours of sale and did not deal with the issue here presented. In view of our conclusion, other grounds urged for reversal need not be considered. The judgment is reversed with directions to the trial court to order the defendant city to issue Sierota his license in conformity with the state statute. HALL and DAY, JJ., concur.