City of New Orleans v. Smythe

Citations

• 116 La. 685
• 41 So. 33
• 1906 La. LEXIS 552

Syllabus

<p>1. Intoxicating Liquors—Barroom Permits —Validity of Ordinance.</p> <p>Ordinance No. 12,636, relative to saloon and barroom permits, adopted by council of the city of New Orleans pursuant to section 21 of the city charter of 1896 (Act No. 45, p. 55 of 1896), is not unconstitutional as conferring arbitrary powers on the property holders and council or as discriminating in favor of saloons and barrooms already opened and established at the date of the ordinance. City of New Orleans v. Macheca, 36 South. 590, 112 La. 559, reaffirmed.</p> <p>2. Same—Prohibition.</p> <p>There is no inherent right in a citizen to sell intoxicating liquors by retail, and the business may be entirely prohibited, or be permitted under such conditions as will limit to the utmost its evils. Crowley v. Christensen, 11 Sup. Ct. 13, 34 L. Ed. 620, 127 U. S. 86.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.'—For cases in point, see vol. 29, Cent. Dig. Intoxicating Liquors, § 1.]</p> <p>3. Same — Arbitrary Refusal — Remedy of Apflicant.</p> <p>Section 21 of the city charter of 1896 (Act No. 45, p. 55; of 1896) does not vest in the city council absolute control over barrooms, and saloon permits, and, where the refusal to grant such a permit is arbitrary, discriminatory, and unjust, the applicant has his remedy by mandamus. To that extent State ex reí. Galle v. City of New Orleans, 36 South. 999, 113 La. 371, 67 L. R. A. 70 is reaffirmed.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 29, Cent. Dig. Intoxicating Liquors, § 75.]</p> <p>Monroe, J., dissenting.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>