« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
Haggart, Tyler et al v.
Bank of Omaha v....... Hardy et ux., Thompson et
Hardman v. Kelley.
Hickson v. Culbert et al.
Jackson v. Bailey.
Jerome v. Rust..
Jones et al. v. Jones et al... Jones et al. v. Jones et al... Juckett et al., Fargo v. Juckett v. Fall River Co., et al....
Page 497 514 11
Juckett v. Fargo Mercantile Co. et al. . .
Keith et al., Langmaack v.. Kelley, Hardman v..
In re Nelson.
Iowa Falls Mig. Co. v. Farrar 632 Iowa Loan and Trust Co. v.
Schnose et al....
v. Sherman & Bratager... 238
91 608 34
453 263 372 592 150
Kelly, Mississippi Lumber &
Kennedy et al., Garrigan v.. 11 Kerr, Sheriff v. Murphy et al. 184 King et al., Sanford, City
Mayor et al. v... Kirby v. Martindale.
Klingaman v. Fish & Hunter
Koehler, Waege v.
Kothe v. Board Sup. of Berlin
Moran v. Thomas et al.
Murphy et al., Kerr, Sheriff,
Lambert, Co. Treas., et al.,
Langmaack v. Keith et al.
Madson et al., Merager v.
423 381 269
Mathewson v. Fredrich et al. McCallister et al., Hurley v... McCormick, Pfeiffer et al. v. McLennon v. Fenner et al.. 492 McLouth, Bon Homme Co. v. 555 McQuater, Cooke v.
Meade Co. Bank v. Decker..
Mears v. Smith et al.
Co. v. Kelly....
Murphy v. Nelson et al.
378 79 400
160 469 26
Nelson et al. Murphy et al. v. 197 Nelson, In re.. 214
Security Trust Co., Bankers'
Nat. Bank v...
Nat. Bank of Ottumwa v.. Smith, Albien v... Smith, Barron V.. Smith et al., Hartshorn v Smith et al., Mears v. Smith, Nichols v. Smith, Whitford v. Smith, Whitford V.
Thomas et al., Moran v..
159-161 161 158
State et al. v. Coughran et al. 271 State et al., C. & J. Michel Brewing Co. v....
State ex rel. Crothers et al.
State ex rel. Taubman v. Hus-
Stokes et al., Everett v
644 447 75
91 572 167
Waege v. Koehler...
108 158 .-161 131
Wolven. Battelle, v.
Work et al. v. Braun et al. . 437 Yegge, State v...
Zoellner et al.. Clarke v....
CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED
State of South Dakota
STATE: ex rel. CROTHERS et al. v. BARBER et al., TOWN OF HET.
1. Laws 1897, p. 214, c. 72, 23, constituting Rev. Pol. Code, § 2856, as
amended by Laws 1903, p. 191, c. 166, relating to the sale of intoxicating liquors, provides that the question of granting permits to sell at retail sball be submitted on petition at the annual municipal election held in any township, town, or city, and, if i majority vote in favor thereof, the corporate authorities shall grant permits "for the ensuing year." Held, that this requircd the annual submission of the question, and limited the power to grant permits to the ensuing year after an election favor.
ing the same, unless authorized by an election for the following year. 2. Construing such section thus does not make the law of 1897, p. 203, c. 72,
a prohibition law instead of a license law, and therefore unconstitution
ał because the term “prohibition” is cot used in its title. 3. The law is not unconstitutional as delegating power to local communi
ties to prohibit or authorize such sale, as the law is uniform in its operation throughout the state, applies to all persons, and does not leave the question of prohibition to towns and cities, as it does prohibit the sale unless the conditions are complied with.
(Opinion filed December 21, 1904.)
Opinion of the Court-CORSON, P. J.
(19 S. D.
Appeal from circuit court, Kingsbury county; Hon. CHARLES S. WHITING, Judge.
Prohibition by the state,, on the relation of P. R. Crothers and another, against L. W. Barber and others, trustees of the town of Hetland, in Kingsbury county. From a judgment awarding the writ, defendants appeal. , Affirmed.
Taubmand killiamson, for appellants.
Warren & Warren (Aubrey Lawrence, of counsel), for respondents.
CORSON, P. J. This is an appeal from a judgment awarding a writ of prohibition against defendants, as trustees of the incorporated town of Hetland. The facts found by the court, úpon which the writ of prohibition was based, are in substance as follows: That relators were residents, taxpayers and legal voters of the town of Hetland, and that said town was duly incorporated; that the defendants constituted the duly elected, qualified, and acting board of trustees of said town; that appli'cations were made by various persons, in due form of law, for permits to sell intoxicating liquors in said town during the year commencing July 1, 1904, and ending July 30, 1905, which applications were filed with the clerk, and the board of trustees set a day for hearing said applications, and directed notice thereof to be published, which was duly published; that the question of granting permits or of receiving license for the sale of intoxicating liquors was not submitted to the legal vot. ers of said town at the annual municipal election held therein for the
1904; that the question of sale of intoxicating liquors
town submitted to the legal voters
thereof at the annual