Foster v. Crisman
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Wapello District Court. — Hon. D. M. Anderson, Judge. The trial court found that the petition of general consent to sell intoxicating liquor was insufficient. Defendants appeal. —
1Opinion of the CourtPreston, J.
On December 18, 1912, the appellants, who are also referred to in the record as proponents, filed with the auditor of Wapello county a written statement of general consent for the sale of intoxicating liquors in Ottumwa, under the provisions of the mulct law. The board of supervisors found the petition sufficient. On appeal the district court found the statement insufficient. Its judgment was based upon the finding that one of the canvassers, L. A. Mongerson, was not a “reputable person” within the meaning of the law, and that therefore the sixty-four names returned by him should not be…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Foster v. Bd. of Police Comm'rsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- In re TrumDistrict Court, W.D. Missouri · 1912
- Hardesty v. HineIndiana Supreme Court · 1893
- Groscop v. RainierIndiana Supreme Court · 1887
- Whissen v. FurthSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1904
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Riley v. LitchfieldSupreme Court of Iowa · 1914
- Main v. EllsworthSupreme Court of Iowa · 1946
- Jarrell v. SmithCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1962