Fordham v. City of Dublin

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Fordham v. City of Dublin

92 S.E. 950, 20 Ga. App. 162, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 770

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 13, 1917

Docket8359

StatusPublished

This text of 92 S.E. 950 (Fordham v. City of Dublin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fordham v. City of Dublin, 92 S.E. 950, 20 Ga. App. 162, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 770 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Wade, C. J.

This case is controlled by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Barlow v. Americus, 146 Ga. 805 (92 S. E. 643). The municipal ordinance which prohibited any person from having in his possession within the corporate limits of the city of Dublin' alcoholic, malt, spirituous, or intoxicating liquors or other drinks which if drunk to excess will produce intoxication, for the purpose of sale or of illegally disposing of said liquors or other drinks, was superseded by the provisions of section 2 of the act of 1915 (Georgia Laws, 1915, Extraordinary Session, p. 77), and the jurisdiction of the municipality to punish for the offense of keeping intoxicating liquors for sale under the ordinance above referred to was extinguished by the 'said act of the legislature. The judge of the superior court therefore erred in refusing to sanction the certiorari, by which it was sought to bring into question the validity of the ordinance penalizing the storing of intoxicating liquors for the purpose of sale within the corporate limits of a municipality of this State.

Judgment reversed.

George and Lulce, concur.

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

Wade, C. J.

This case is controlled by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Barlow v. Americus, 146 Ga. 805 (92 S. E. 643). The municipal ordinance which prohibited any person from having in his possession within the corporate limits of the city of Dublin' alcoholic, malt, spirituous, or intoxicating liquors or other drinks which if drunk to excess will produce intoxication, for the purpose of sale or of illegally disposing of said liquors or other drinks, was superseded by the provisions of section 2 of the act of 1915 (Georgia Laws, 1915, Extraordinary Session, p. 77), and the jurisdiction of the municipality to punish for the offense of keeping intoxicating liquors for sale under the ordinance above referred to was extinguished by the 'said act of the legislature. The judge of the superior court therefore erred in refusing to sanction the certiorari, by which it was sought to bring into question the validity of the ordinance penalizing the storing of intoxicating liquors for the purpose of sale within the corporate limits of a municipality of this State.

Judgment reversed.

George and Lulce, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 S.E. 950, 20 Ga. App. 162, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 770, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fordham-v-city-of-dublin-gactapp-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack