Ritz v. Lightston (1909) · DecisionDepot

Ritz v. Lightston

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Court of Appeal May 27, 1909 No. Civ. No. 589.Published

Before: Cooper

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a municipal ordinance restricting the issuance of liquor licenses to bona fide hotels within specific geographic boundaries is a valid exercise of police power and not unconstitutionally discriminatory against a non-hotelier applicant.

Issues

Whether a municipal ordinance restricting liquor licenses to hotels within certain districts is a valid exercise of police power.
Whether an applicant who does not operate a hotel has standing to challenge the ordinance's classification of hotels.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“There is no inherent right in a citizen to thus sell intoxicating liquors by retail; it is not a privilege of a citizen of the state or of a citizen of the United States.”

“He has no hotel, and therefore is not in a position to complain of any discrimination made by the ordinance as to hotels.”

Synopsis

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

COOPER, P. J.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the trial court denying the application of appellant for a writ of mandate against the defendant as treasurer of the city of San Jose.

It is conceded that the defendant was, at all the times set forth in the verified petition, the treasurer of the city of San Jose, and that it was his duty, by virtue of his said office as such treasurer, to issue licenses to all persons conducting a legal business within the corporate limits of said city, where such business is authorized under the ordinances of said city, and where persons conducting the same are required to take out a license for the purpose of conducting such business.

The petitioner, on and prior to the sixteenth day of December, 1907, had been engaged in the business of conducting and maintaining a saloon and bar upon his premises within the corporate limits of said city, and continued in such business until the first day of July, 1908, when the defendant as treasurer refused to issue to him any further license or permit him to carry on the said saloon and bar. The defendant based his refusal upon an ordinance, duly passed by the mayor

[687]

and common council of the city of San Jose, on the sixteenth day of December, 1907, to take effect on and after July 1, 1908, which ordinance provides: “No license for any bar, barroom, saloon or other public drinking place, and no transfer or removal of any license for any such place shall be granted, except where such bar, barroom, saloon or other public drinking place is to be conducted in a building fronting upon one of the streets hereinafter named, or upon that portion of some street or alley contained within the territory hereinafter described, to wit ...” Then follows a description by metas and bounds of the portion of said city in which saloons and bars are expressly authorized. The ordinance then concludes as follows: “Provided that nothing herein contained shall prevent the renewal of any license to conduct a bar in any

bona fide

hotel at present existing without said limits.”

It' is the contention of the appellant that the ordinance is void by reason of the proviso, which in effect declares that in certain territory of said city a license to conduct a bar shall only be issued to a

Ritz v. Lightston

AI Brief

Synopsis

COOPER, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief