City of Hannibal v. Guyott
Supreme Court of Missouri
tdppeal from Hannibal Court of Common Pleas. Tbe act of 1847 did not repeal tbe act of 1845, but merely added a condition, which bad to be complied with before tbe tavern keeper could sell liquors.
Read the full summary
tdppeal from Hannibal Court of Common Pleas. Tbe act of 1847 did not repeal tbe act of 1845, but merely added a condition, which bad to be complied with before tbe tavern keeper could sell liquors. Tbe repeal of tbe act of 1847, in 1849, left tbe law as it was in 1845, without tbe condition imposed by the act of 1847. If this is so, then tbe license to the defendant, dated January 3, 1853, gave him a vested right to sell liquor for one year, and this right could not be impaired by any subsequent ordinance of the city of Hannibal. 3 Story’s Comm, on the Cons. 257-64. Dartmouth College v.…
1Opinion of the CourtRyiaND, Judge
This action was brought before the recorder of the city of Hannibal, to recover the penalty for a violation of the city ordinance concerning the sale of intoxicating liquors. The city *517obtained judgment for one hundred dollars, the amount of the penalty, and the defendant appealed to the Hannibal Court of Common Pleas. The plaintiff again recovered judgment for the penalty, and the defendant having failed in his motion for a new trial, prosecutes his appeal in this court.
From the bill of exceptions it appears that the city of Hannibal passed an ordinance on the 6th of April, 1853, to regulate…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Schwuchow v. City of ChicagoIllinois Supreme Court · 1873
- Lemasters v. WillmanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1955
- State ex rel. Shaw v. BakerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1888
- Atlantic Oil Producing Co. v. CrileNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1930
- State v. SearcySupreme Court of Missouri · 1855
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.