Sawyer v. Thomas
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Newton Circuit Court. — Hon. H. G. Pepper, Judge. The prohibition of section 2992, R. S..1899, apart from any other consideration, renders the contract for the transfer of the dramshop licenses in question incurably void. And enforcement of the public policy of this State, as to the business of dramshops and the licensing thereof, would necessarily result likewise, without that statutory provision. Mitchell v. Branham, 79 S. W. 739; Sedalia Board v. Brady, 78 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Newton Circuit Court. — Hon. H. G. Pepper, Judge. The prohibition of section 2992, R. S..1899, apart from any other consideration, renders the contract for the transfer of the dramshop licenses in question incurably void. And enforcement of the public policy of this State, as to the business of dramshops and the licensing thereof, would necessarily result likewise, without that statutory provision. Mitchell v. Branham, 79 S. W. 739; Sedalia Board v. Brady, 78 Mo. App. 585; Swing v. Cider Co., 77 Mo. App. 391, 397; Parsons v. Randolph, 21 Mo. App. 353; Woolfolk v. Duncan, 80 App.…
1DissentGoode, J.
(dissenting). — The plaintiff swore that he did not know the bill of sale included the licenses, though he was willing for the defendants to have the licenses if they desired them. Plaintiff testified further that there was no arrangement between him and the defendants that the latter were to conduct the saloon in his name and under his licenses and that he knew nothing of how the business was conducted after he sold. The court left it to the jury to say whether or not there was an agreement between plaintiff and defendants in regard to what licenses the business should be run under after the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Mitchell v. BranhamMissouri Court of Appeals · 1904
- Curran v. DownsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1877