Hurber v. Baugh
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from MahasJca District Court. In 1871, the city council of Oskaloosa passed an ordinance providing that any one desiring to sell wine or beer within the city limits should first procure a license from the mayor; and further providing that if any person procuring such license “shall sell or give * * * any wine or beer to any person on the Sabbath day, or to any minor, or to any intoxicated person at any time, * * * such acts shall operate as a forfeiture of the license…
Read the full summary
Appeal from MahasJca District Court. In 1871, the city council of Oskaloosa passed an ordinance providing that any one desiring to sell wine or beer within the city limits should first procure a license from the mayor; and further providing that if any person procuring such license “shall sell or give * * * any wine or beer to any person on the Sabbath day, or to any minor, or to any intoxicated person at any time, * * * such acts shall operate as a forfeiture of the license of the person so violating the ordinance.” Said ordinance further provided that “ when the mayor has reason to believe,…
1Opinion of the CourtRothrock, J.
It is proper to observe here that the proceeding in question before the mayor, and on which plaintiff’s license was revoked, was a charge for selling beer to a person while in a state of intoxication. The violation of the ordinance, with which defendant was charged, had direct reference to the business in which he was authorized to engage by virtue of his license. The Revision of 1860, Sec. 1072, which was in force at the time of the passage of the ordinance, provided that “by-laws and ordinances of municipal corporations *516may be enforced by the imposition of fines, penalties and forfeitures.”
T…
2Cited by13 opinions
- McInerney v. City of DenverSupreme Court of Colorado · 1892
- Wallace v. Mayor of RenoNevada Supreme Court · 1903
- State ex rel. Getchel v. BradishWisconsin Supreme Court · 1897
- Walker v. City of ClintonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1953
- Hevren v. ReedCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.