In re Doylestown Distilling Co.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 148, Oot. T., 1897, by the Doylestown Distilling Co., Ltd., from decree of Q. S. Bucks Co., refusing distiller’s license. Rice, P. J. and Beaver, J., dissent. Application for distiller’s license. Before Yerkes, P. J. The application for tbe license, bond and other proceedings were in regular form.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 148, Oot. T., 1897, by the Doylestown Distilling Co., Ltd., from decree of Q. S. Bucks Co., refusing distiller’s license. Rice, P. J. and Beaver, J., dissent. Application for distiller’s license. Before Yerkes, P. J. The application for tbe license, bond and other proceedings were in regular form. Tbe application baying been beard according to the rules of court the license was refused upon tbe ground that there was no necessity for it, in an opinion by Yerkes, P. J., as follows : This petition seems to rest upon peculiar grounds. It is not stated that a license is needed for tbe…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Smith, J.,
The principles that must govern the decision of this case have been settled by repeated and well considered adjudications.. These principles, with the authorities on which they rest, have been so recently reviewed, in Donoghue’s Appeal, 5 Pa. Superior Ct. 1, that no extended discussion of them is here necessary.
A petition for license is addressed to the discretion of the-license court. This is not an arbitrary or unregulated discretion, but a judicial discretion, resting on reasons to be found in the line of inquiry marked out by the statute from which it is' *91derived.…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Donoghue's LicenseSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
3Cited by1 opinion
- In re McKibbinsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1899