South Carolina Tax Commission v. McLain

62 S.E.2d 505, 218 S.C. 285, 1950 S.C. LEXIS 76
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedDecember 5, 1950
Docket16440
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 62 S.E.2d 505 (South Carolina Tax Commission v. McLain) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
South Carolina Tax Commission v. McLain, 62 S.E.2d 505, 218 S.C. 285, 1950 S.C. LEXIS 76 (S.C. 1950).

Opinion

PER CURIAM;

Respondent is a licensed beer dealer in Sumter. After a hearing the Tax Commission undertook to suspend the license for a period of one week upon the charge that respondent had sold beer to an intoxicated person, invoking the following quoted ban contained in Act. No. 748 of 1942, 42 Stat. 1739:

“Section 2: No holder of a permit authorizing the sale of beer or wine, or any servant, agent or employee of the permittee, shall knowingly do any of the following upon the licensed premises covered by said holder's permit:

*■ * *

“(2) Sell beer or wine to any person while such person is in an intoxicated condition.”

Section 3 of the Act authorizes appeal by the licensee to the Court of Common Pleas of the county of his residence where trial shall be de novo. Respondent followed the pre[287]*287cribed procedure and testimony was taken in the court but none of it is contained in the appeal record.

The trial court sustained the appeal and revfersed the revocation of license upon a construction of the statute which is challenged by the Commission in the present appeal. However, the latter will have to be overruled and the order affirmed because of the absence from the record of a finding that the person to whom respondent made the questioned'sale was in fact intoxicated or any evidence thereabout. The nearest approach is the statement in the order that intoxication was alleged. This is manifestly insufficient. It is therefore unnecessary to decide the question which has been argued.

Affirmed.

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

Related

State v. Rackley
68 S.E.2d 873 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1952)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
62 S.E.2d 505, 218 S.C. 285, 1950 S.C. LEXIS 76, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/south-carolina-tax-commission-v-mclain-sc-1950.