Matter of Farley v. . Wurz
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered October 17,1914, which affirmed an order of Special Term revoking and canceling a liquor tax certificate. The facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion. The petition did not state facts sufficient to give the court jurisdiction. (Thanser v. Brien, 139 App. Div. 14; People ex rel.
Read the full summary
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered October 17,1914, which affirmed an order of Special Term revoking and canceling a liquor tax certificate. The facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion. The petition did not state facts sufficient to give the court jurisdiction. (Thanser v. Brien, 139 App. Div. 14; People ex rel. Perkins v. Moss, 187 N. Y. 418; Matter of Farley, 212 N. Y. 299; Matter of Peck v. Cargill, 167 N. Y. 391; Matter of Clement v. Moore, 127 App. Div. 915; 193 N. Y. 609; Matter of Plass, 71 App.…
1Opinion of the CourtCardozo, J.
The proceeding is one to revoke a liquor tax certificate. In October, 1912, a license to traffic in liquors during the year ending September 30, 1913, was granted to one Euss. On March 14, 1913, he applied for the transfer of his certificate to the appellant Wurz,. and on his statement that he had not violated any of the provisions of the Liquor Tax Law, the transfer was made. The truth is that on the same day he was indicted for using the licensed building as a disorderly house (Penal Law, § 1146). In the following June, he was convicted of that crime. On September 27, 1913, three days…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Keokuk & Western Railroad v. MissouriSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Holbrook v. . New Jersey Zinc Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1874
- Presidio County v. Noel-Young Bond & Stock Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1909
- Houston v. TimmermanOregon Supreme Court · 1889
- Masten v. . OlcottNew York Court of Appeals · 1886
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Stoumen v. ReillyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
- Vallerga v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage ControlCalifornia Supreme Court · 1959
- Zenith Bathing Pavilion, Inc. v. Fair Oaks Steamship Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1925
- Barnes v. Midland Railroad Terminal Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1916
- Schnitzler v. YellowleyDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1923
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.