Commonwealth v. Brennan

103 Mass. 70
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedOctober 15, 1869
StatusPublished
Cited by24 cases

This text of 103 Mass. 70 (Commonwealth v. Brennan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Commonwealth v. Brennan, 103 Mass. 70 (Mass. 1869).

Opinion

Chapman, C. J.

The first section of the St. of 1868, c. 141, provides that no person, with certain specified exceptions, shall sell, or expose or keep for sale, intoxicating liquors, unless he is authorized to sell the same in the manner provided in the act, Section 2 provides that the county commissioners may grant licenses for the sale of such liquors; and other sections regulate the granting of licenses. By the St. of 1869, c. 191, the power to grant licenses is taken away, and it is declared that no licenses granted after April 30 shall have any validity. At this period the licenses granted in the previous year were to expire by their terms. It is contended that this statute operates as a repeal of the act of 1868. The argument is, that, as the act of 1868 merely prohibited sales by persons who had not a license, the act of 1869, abolishing licenses, left every person free to sell without a license, and,' being repugnant to the former act, repealed it, by implication.

But we cannot perceive that this argument has any force. The first section of the act of 1868 contains a general prohibition to sell without a license. A license conferred a right co sell which was merely exceptional. The exceptional righ was abolished, and left the general prohibition in force.

[71]*71It is further contended that if the act of 1869 is to receive such a construction as we have here given it, it is unconstitutional, because it violates a contract made by the Commonwealth with its citizens by the provisions of the act of 1868. But a license granted under that act is not a contract. Calder v. Kurby, 5 Gray, 597. Much less is there a contract with a person who has no license. Exceptions overruled.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

STATE EX REL. POLLARD, ETC. v. Sup. Ct. Mar. Co.
122 N.E.2d 612 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1954)
State ex rel. Pollard v. Superior Court
122 N.E.2d 612 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1954)
Selectmen of Topsfield v. State Racing Commission
86 N.E.2d 65 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1949)
State Ex Relator McNamara v. Clark
187 S.W. 760 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1915)
Fuchs v. Common Council
132 N.W. 96 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1911)
Gordon v. Corning
92 N.E. 59 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1910)
State v. Gibbs
74 A. 229 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1909)
City of Lowell v. Archambault
75 N.E. 65 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1905)
Wallace v. Mayor of Reno
73 P. 528 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1903)
City of Carbondale v. Wade
106 Ill. App. 654 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1903)
Higgins v. Talty
57 S.W. 724 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1900)
West v. Bishop
81 N.W. 696 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1900)
Shea v. City of Muncie
46 N.E. 138 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1897)
State ex rel. Getchel v. Bradish
37 L.R.A. 289 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1897)
Moore v. City of Indianapolis
22 N.E. 424 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1889)
Columbus City v. Cutcomp
17 N.W. 47 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1883)
Commonwealth v. Kinsley
133 Mass. 578 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1882)
In re Watson
15 F. 511 (D. Vermont, 1882)
State v. Robertson
1 Tex. L. R. 542 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1882)
H. H. Rowland & Bro. v. State
12 Tex. Ct. App. 418 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1882)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
103 Mass. 70, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-brennan-mass-1869.