Court Opinion

ID: 6661843
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-20 21:02:45.363967+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:00:12.266972
License: Public Domain

Barnes, J.,
concurring.
It is stated in the majority opinion, in substance, that we ought not to assume that, in enacting the so-called Gibson act, thé legislature intended that it should be so construed as to result in the confiscation of the vast amount of property which at one time was owned by the brewing company, if such construction can reasonably be avoided. As I understand the question, such would be the effect of the act if we should hold that the licensing board had the power and was required to determine the rights of the Independent Eealty Company to own, hold and control such real estate. This question is a judicial one, and should be determined by a court of equity in a case brought directly for that purpose, and in which the Independent Eealty Company is a party. This question should not be decided by an administrative body, such as a city council or village board. It is shown by the record that the title to the realty once owned by the Storz Brewing Company is now of record in the Independent Eealty Company. It is regular and fair upon its face. Its title has not been assailed by the state in any proceeding in a court having jurisdiction to determine the bona fides of its title. As I under*258stand the question, the title of the realty company should not be determined by an administrative body upon the mere suggestion that the property still belongs to the brewing company. This question cannot properly be disposed of by saying that the statute is so plain that a village board or city council is bound to refuse a license to sell malt, spirituous or vinous liquors to an applicant, upon the suggestion that the building in which the applicant proposes to conduct his business is owned and controlled by a brewing company, in a proceeding to which the owner of the title is not a party. It is not a proper disposition of this far-reaching and important question to say that the statute is too plain for misinterpretation or misconstruction. The question should be determined in an action for that purpose, brought in a court competent to determine it, and its judgment should be such that a licensing board would have no difficulty in following the rule announced by the court. Otherwise we might have the good faith of.the Independent Realty Company’s title upheld in one village and denied in others.
I therefore concur in the majority opinion.