Kentucky Club v. City of Louisville
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 59 — ORDINANCE WARRANTS APPEALS FROM LOUISVILLE CITY COURT. Furnishing liquor by a social club to its members is not selling by retail as forbidden by ordinance of the city. (Louisville City Code, pp. 395, 396, 405, sec. 32.) Such furnishing is not a sale within the meaning of the law.
Read the full summary
Case 59 — ORDINANCE WARRANTS APPEALS FROM LOUISVILLE CITY COURT. Furnishing liquor by a social club to its members is not selling by retail as forbidden by ordinance of the city. (Louisville City Code, pp. 395, 396, 405, sec. 32.) Such furnishing is not a sale within the meaning of the law. (Benjamin on Sales, sec. 1; Graff v. Evans, L. R., 8 Q. B. D., 373; Seine v. State, 55 Hd., 566; Tennessee Club v. Dwyer, 44 Lea., 452; Commonwealth v. Smith, 102 Mass., 144; State v.’Smith, 5 Hum., 394; Commonwealth v. Pomphret, 137 Mass., 564; Commonwealth v. Ewing, 145 Mass., 119.) The sale by a social…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE LEWIS
DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
Against tbe appellant in each of these two cases, which will be considered and determined together, an ordinance warrant was issued; under it each was tried in the City-Court of Louisville, and judgment rendered against each for $55. The offense charged against them, respectively, is that of unlawfully keeping a- club-house in the city of *310Louisville wherein malt and spirituous liquors were sold by retail without first having obtained a license so to do.
The ordinance they are charged to have violated is as follows: “ Any club-house and club-room…
2Cited by35 opinions
- Spiek v. Department of TransportationMichigan Supreme Court · 1998
- State v. DukeTexas Supreme Court · 1911
- Ponischil v. Hoquiam Sash & Door Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1906
- Tomazewski v. Palmer Bee Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1923
- City of Lynchburg v. PetersSupreme Court of Virginia · 1926
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.