In re Nordstrom

Citations

• 127 Pa. 542
• 18 A. 601
• 1889 Pa. LEXIS 1148

Syllabus

<p>[To be reported.]</p> <p>1. The provision of the wholesale license act of May 24, 1887, P. L. 194, that licenses to dealers, brewers, distillers,bottlers, etc., shall be granted “ in such manner as is provided by existing laws,” does not incorporate into that act the discretionary powers conferred upon courts by the act of May 13, 1887, P. L. 108; Pollard’s Petition, ante, 507 ; Prospect Brewing Co.’s Petition, ante, 523.</p> <p>2. In the absence of any local law in force in Jefferson county to the contrary, the general act of March 22, 1867, P. L. 40, a supplement to the act of March 31, 1856, P. L. 200,† is in force in said county, and is to be taken as the existing law therein, referred to in the provision quoted from the said act of May 24, 1887, P. L. 194.</p> <p>3. The act of March 22,1867, P. L. 40, places wholesale licenses and retail licenses upon the same plane, and confers upon the Courts of Quarter Sessions the same discretion in granting or refusing a wholesale license as in the case of an application for a retail license: Reed’s Appeal, 114 Pa. 452.</p> <p>4. The Court of Quarter Sessions, in the exercise of a lawful discretion, may refuse to approve the bond accompanying an application for license, when the name of a surety upon the bond and to the jurat as to the sufficiency thereof was erased when presented, and the erasures were without explanation.</p> <p>5. Wherefore, when the return to an alternative writ of mandamus sets forth as grounds for the refusal of a wholesale license in said comity, such a defective bond, and that the license was refused because, in the opinion of the court, the conservation of the public peace and morals demanded it, the peremptory writ will be refused.</p>