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.

SAWDEY LIQUOR LICENSE CASE (12/27/51)

December 27, 1951

SAWDEY LIQUOR LICENSE CASE


Appeals, Nos. 22 and 23, March T., 1952, from orders of Superior Court, April T., 1951, Nos. 68 and 69, affirming order of Court of Quarter Sessions of Erie County, Sept. Sessions, 1950, No. 162, in re Appeals of W. Raymond Sawdey and John H. Russell, from Order of Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board refusing them a hotel liquor license. Orders reversed.

COUNSEL

William W. Knox, with him John J. Galbo, for appellants.

Samuel J. Roberts, Special Deputy Attorney General, with him Horace A. Segelbaum, Deputy Attorney General and Robert E. Woodside, Jr., Attorney General, for appellee.

Before Drew, C.j., Stern, Stearne, Bell, Ladner and Chidsey, JJ.

Author: Ladner

[ 369 Pa. Page 20]

OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE LADNER

These appeals come to us from the Superior Court on allocatur.

This case originated in an appeal to the Erie County Quarter Sessions Court from the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board's refusal to grant the appellants a hotel liquor license for their hotel in Millcreek Township of that county. The Erie County Court affirmed the Board's refusal whereupon the appeal to the Superior Court followed which court affirmed the Quarter Sessions Court.

These are the undisputed facts. In November, 1948, appellants began construction of a hotel on the beach

[ 369 Pa. Page 21]

    of Lake Erie. A year later they applied for a hotel liquor license. It is admitted that the structure of the hotel and the applicants themselves met all the requirements of the Board and the conditions of the Liquor Control Act of June 16, 1937, P.L. 1762, 47 P.S. 744-403 as amended. When the construction was begun there was no zoning ordinance in the township restricting the sale or dispensing of intoxicating liquor and the hotel was designed and the building erected to provide for a bar room with the usual fixtures.

When the building was approximately half completed, a zoning ordinance was adopted, effective April 14, 1949,*fn1 by the supervisors of the township which designated the district in which the hotel was being erected as a Mixed Occupancy district in which restaurants, grocery stores, hotels and club houses were allowed but provided that "No license for the dispensing of intoxicating liquor in any form is permitted." It is admitted that the only reason the Liquor Control Board refused the appellants a license for their hotel was the above provision of the zoning ordinance. It is important to note that the zoning ordinance in question by Section 1004 also provided, "Section 1004. Completion of Buildings. All structures started within six (6) months prior to the passage date of this ordinance and not in conformity therewith, shall be discontinued, provided, (1) ...


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.