McMinn v. Mayor of Cambridge

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

McMinn v. Mayor of Cambridge

113 N.E. 1037, 225 Mass. 104, 1916 Mass. LEXIS 1193

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedOctober 18, 1916

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 113 N.E. 1037 (McMinn v. Mayor of Cambridge) 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

McMinn v. Mayor of Cambridge, 113 N.E. 1037, 225 Mass. 104, 1916 Mass. LEXIS 1193 (Mass. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Loedstg, J.

The granting of liquor licenses of the sixth class in the city of Cambridge is vested in the city council unless a veto power is given to the mayor by St. 1915, c. 267, Part III, §8.

It is provided by R. L. c. 100, §22, (amended by St. 1915, c. 200,) that the granting or not granting of a sixth class liquor license to a retail druggist or apothecary is vested in the mayor and aldermen in case of a city where there is no licensing board. There was no licensing board in the city of Cambridge. By force of R. L. c. 8, § 5, cl. 10, the mayor and aldermen in such a case mean the board of aldermen. And finally, by force of R. L. c. 26, § 3, in cities which have a single legislative board other than a board of aldermen “ such board shall . . . have the powers, per[106]*106form the duties and be subject to the liabilities of the board of aldermen.”

Under the Revised Laws in cities which vote to grant liquor licenses the granting or not granting of licenses to sell liquor and of licenses to be an innholder or common victualer is vested in a ■licensing board. R. L. c. 100, §§ 9,10; c. 102, § 2. In cities which vote not to grant licenses for the sale of intoxicating liquors the power to grant both these kinds of licenses is given to the board of aldermen. St. 1910, c. 383, amending R. L. c.' 102, § 2.

The function performed by the board of aldermen and in Cambridge and similar cities by the city council in granting or not granting liquor licenses of the sixth.and seventh class and in granting or not granting licenses to be an innholder or common victualer is the same function which is exercised by the licensing board when the granting of those licenses is within the power of the licensing board.

The veto power given by St. 1915, c. 267, Part III, § 8, is in these words: “Every order, ordinance, resolution and vote relative to the affairs of the city, adopted or passed by the city council, shall be presented to the mayor for his approval.” An order voting a license of the sixth class to an apothecary is an order made by the city council as a licensing board and is no more subject to the veto power of the mayor than is a similar order made by the licensing board itself in cities which vote for license.

We are of opinion therefore that it is not within St. 1915, c. 267, Part III, § 8, and that on the council voting to grant the petitioner a license he was entitled to have a license issued to him signed by the mayor.

St. 1909, c. 423,

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

Loedstg, J.

The granting of liquor licenses of the sixth class in the city of Cambridge is vested in the city council unless a veto power is given to the mayor by St. 1915, c. 267, Part III, §8.

It is provided by R. L. c. 100, §22, (amended by St. 1915, c. 200,) that the granting or not granting of a sixth class liquor license to a retail druggist or apothecary is vested in the mayor and aldermen in case of a city where there is no licensing board. There was no licensing board in the city of Cambridge. By force of R. L. c. 8, § 5, cl. 10, the mayor and aldermen in such a case mean the board of aldermen. And finally, by force of R. L. c. 26, § 3, in cities which have a single legislative board other than a board of aldermen “ such board shall . . . have the powers, per[106]*106form the duties and be subject to the liabilities of the board of aldermen.”

Under the Revised Laws in cities which vote to grant liquor licenses the granting or not granting of licenses to sell liquor and of licenses to be an innholder or common victualer is vested in a ■licensing board. R. L. c. 100, §§ 9,10; c. 102, § 2. In cities which vote not to grant licenses for the sale of intoxicating liquors the power to grant both these kinds of licenses is given to the board of aldermen. St. 1910, c. 383, amending R. L. c.' 102, § 2.

The function performed by the board of aldermen and in Cambridge and similar cities by the city council in granting or not granting liquor licenses of the sixth.and seventh class and in granting or not granting licenses to be an innholder or common victualer is the same function which is exercised by the licensing board when the granting of those licenses is within the power of the licensing board.

The veto power given by St. 1915, c. 267, Part III, § 8, is in these words: “Every order, ordinance, resolution and vote relative to the affairs of the city, adopted or passed by the city council, shall be presented to the mayor for his approval.” An order voting a license of the sixth class to an apothecary is an order made by the city council as a licensing board and is no more subject to the veto power of the mayor than is a similar order made by the licensing board itself in cities which vote for license.

We are of opinion therefore that it is not within St. 1915, c. 267, Part III, § 8, and that on the council voting to grant the petitioner a license he was entitled to have a license issued to him signed by the mayor.

St. 1909, c. 423,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 N.E. 1037, 225 Mass. 104, 1916 Mass. LEXIS 1193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcminn-v-mayor-of-cambridge-mass-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack