Skip to main content
· 6/28/1889

In re the Prospect Brewing Co.

Citations

  • 127 Pa. 523
  • 17 A. 1090
  • 1889 Pa. LEXIS 1146

Syllabus

<p>[To be reported.]</p> <p>1. In granting licenses to wholesale dealers, brewers, distillers, ote., under the act of May 24, 1887, P. L. 194, the Court of Quarter Sessions of Philadelphia county has not the large discretion conferred upon it by the retail act of May 13, 1887, P. L. 108: Pollard’s Petition, ante, 507; Nordstrom’s Petition, post, 542; Knarr’s Petition, post, 554.</p> <p>2. Tiie discretion conferred upon that court by the act of May 21, 1887, is a qualified and limited discretion, and is confined to the inquiry whether the applicant for a wholesale license is a citizen of the United States, of temperate habits, and of good moral character.</p> <p>3. Where no objection or remonstrance appears on the record of the case, alleging that the petitioner was disqualified in respect of either of the above grounds, citizenship, temperate habits, or moral character, the order of the court refusing the license to the petitioner will be reversed.</p> <p>4. The said act of May 24, 1887, confers upon that court no power to determine the fitness of a person to receive a wholesale license upon the findings of the court upon other matters outside of the qualifications mentioned, to wit: citizenship, habits or moral character.</p> <p>5. The return to a writ of alternative mandamus requires the greatest possible certainty; not merely certainty to a common intent, or certainty to a certain intent in general, but certainty to the greatest possible intent; or, as it is sometimes called, certainty to a certain intent in every particular.</p> <p>6. A return to such writ directed to the Court of Quarter Sessions refusing the petition of a corporation for a brewer’s wholesale license, setting forth that an averment of the relator’s petition was incomplete, inaccurate and misleading, but not showing in what respect; that the company had conducted its business in violation of law, but not showing what law; that the company was not a fit person to receive the license applied for,

Judges: Glare, Green, McCollum, Mitchell, Paxson, Sterrett, Williams

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.