Court Opinion

ID: 9684258
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:52:14.154186+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:54.475150
License: Public Domain

KEITH, Justice
(concurring).
I concur in the disposition of the cause upon the basis of the authorities and reasoning set out by Chief Justice Dies in the majority opinion.
Under our uncontradicted record, appellants have valid licenses authorizing the legal sale of alcoholic beverages upon the premises described in their respective licenses. Thus, they may lawfully do that which is forbidden to unlicensed persons, i. e., sell alcoholic beverages. This personal privilege granted to them by the State of Texas under the terms of the Act, may be exercised lawfully at any time when not forbidden by the Act itself. The Legislature having specified the days and hours when such beverages may not be sold lawfully, Beaumont’s attempt to make unlawful that which is lawful under the Act is therefore inconsistent with and contrary to a general law of the State and invalid. Tex.Const. art. XI, § 5; Home Rule Act, art. 1165, Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. (1963).
I do not find it necessary to discuss other points of error brought forward by appellants. However, one of such points, that the State has pre-empted the field governing opening and closing days and hours of licensed dealers in alcoholic beverages, appears to have merit. See and compare, Prescott v. City of Borger, 158 S.W.2d 578 (Tex.Civ.App., Amarillo 1942, writ ref’d).