Herbert B. Cohen, York, for appellant.
Charles J. Margiotti, Atty. Gen., Horace A. Segelbaum, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before Rhodes, P. J., and Hirt, Reno, Dithrich, Ross, Arnold and Gunther, JJ.
[ 168 Pa. Super. Page 501]
This appeal poses a problem in the construction of the liquor control legislation in regard to quotas.
On the ground that the quota for the Borough of North York was filled, the appellant was refused a license by the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board. The court below sustained the board and this appeal followed.
The quota of licenses for North York was three. At the time of appellant's application there were four licenses in effect: one hotel license, two restaurant liquor licenses, and one retail dispenser eating place license (owned by Sadie Gladfelter). With appellant's application was a proposal of Sadie Gladfelter to cancel her license. Appellant contends that the hotel license is not to be counted in the quota, and upon the cancellation of the Gladfelter license there would be only two licenses to be counted against it; that hence appellant's application should have been granted, it being conceded that appellant met all the requirements of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Act.
The Act of 1939, P.L. 806, 47 P.S. §§ 744-1001 et seq., known as the Quota Act, insofar as pertinent here, reads: 'Section 1. * * * [Requirements for hotels based upon municipal population]. Section 2. [Providing a quota of one license for each 1000 inhabitants] * * * exclusive of licenses granted to hotels, as defined in this act * * *.' (Italics supplied.) The hotel
[ 168 Pa. Super. Page 502]
license in North York had been granted under the Act of 1939.
The Act of 1939 was amended by the Act of 1949, P.L. 964, the title to which is: ' To amend section one of the act [of 1939, P.L. 806], * * * changing the requirements necessary for a hotel to qualify under said act.' (Italics supplied.) Nothing in the title suggests any change in the quota provisions of the Act of 1939, nor that hotel licenses are thereafter to be charged against the quota. But this is not all. Section 1 of the Act of 1949 only increased the requirements to obtain a hotel license in regard to the number of bedrooms. Section 2 of the amendatory act, 47 P.S. § 744-1001 note, reads: 'The provisions of this amending act shall not apply to hotel licenses heretofore granted * * *' under the Act of 1939. (Italics supplied.)
It is therefore clear that section 1 of the Act of 1949 did nothing except increase the requirements to obtain a hotel license. Section 2 (even if it be considered within the provisions of the title) did nothing but save from the operation of section 1 'hotel licenses heretofore granted [etc.]'. There ...