Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

APPEAL INTERSTATE CO. (INTERSTATE COMPANY LIQUOR LICENSE CASE.) (12/10/51)

December 10, 1951

APPEAL OF INTERSTATE CO. (INTERSTATE COMPANY LIQUOR LICENSE CASE.)


COUNSEL

E. G. Scoblionko, Scoblionko & Frank, Allentown, for appellant.

Linn H. Schantz, Horace A. Segelbaum, Deputy Attys. Gen., Robert E. Woodside, Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before Rhodes, P. J., and Hirt, Reno, Dithrich, Ross and Arnold, JJ.

Author: Dithrich

[ 170 Pa. Super. Page 175]

DITHRICH, Judge.

On September 1, 1950, the appellant, which leases the restaurant facilities in Tourinns, Inc., a system of motor courts, filed its application with the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board for a restaurant liquor license for premises located in Upper Macungie Township, Lehigh County. The application was refused on the ground that the Township's quota of three licenses for the retail sale of liquor and malt beverages was exceeded within the meaning of the Quota Act of June 24, 1939, P.L. 806, as amended by the Act of May 9, 1949, P.L. 964, 47 P.S. § 744-1001 et seq. The action of the Board was affirmed by the court below and from its order the applicant appeals.

At present there are eight retail liquor licenses in the Township -- two restaurant licenses and six hotel licenses. Three of the hotel licenses were issued prior to the passage of the Quota Act to hotels which do not meet the requirements of a hotel as set forth in the Quota Act or its amendment but which, when licensed, were hotels within the meaning of the Liquor Control Act of November 29, 1933, Sp.Sess., P.L. 15, 47 P.S.

[ 170 Pa. Super. Page 176]

§ 744-2. The other hotel licenses were issued after the passage of the Quota Act to hotels which meet the requirements of a hotel as set forth in the Quota Act but not those set forth in its amendment. Appellee concedes that the three licenses last mentioned are not chargeable against the Township quota but contends that those licenses issued prior to the passage of the Quota Act should be counted against it.

Section 2 of the Quota Act, 47 P.S. § 744-1002, provides: 'No licenses shall hereafter be granted by the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board for the retail sale of malt or brewed beverages, or the retail sale of liquor and malt or brewed beverages, in excess of one of such licenses, of any class, for each one thousand inhabitants or fraction thereof, in any municipality, exclusive of licenses granted to hotels, as defined in this act, and clubs; * * *. Nothing contained in this section shall be construed as denying the right to the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board to renew or to transfer existing retail licenses of any class, notwithstanding that the number of such licensed places in a municipality shall exceed the limitation hereinbefore prescribed; but where such number exceeds the limitation prescribed by this act, no new license, except for hotels as defined in this act, shall be granted so long as said limitation is exceeded.' (Emphasis added.)

Section 1 of the 1949 amendment to the Quota Act increases the requirements for a hotel license, while § 2 provides: 'The provisions of this amending act shall not apply to hotel licenses heretofore granted or that may hereafter be granted on any application made and pending prior to the effective date of this act nor to any renewal or transfer thereof, * * *.'

Should hotels which do not conform to the statutory requirements for a hotel license under either the Quota Act or its 1949 amendment, but which were licensed as ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.