Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

37 Ind. 206

Brown v. Porter

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided November 15, 1871

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1871-11-15

<p>Appeal.—License to sell Intoxicating Liquors,—Where ail appeal has been taken to the circuit court or court of common pleas from the action of a board of county commissioners in granting or refusing license to sell intoxicating liquors, the decision of such appellate court is final.</p>

Relies on State v. Vierling · Board of Commissioners v. Lease

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1871-11-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently August 1980

7 state decisions

20187118801890190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Worden, C. J.

¶1Andrew J. Porter petitioned the board of commissioners' of Montgomery county for a license to sell intoxicating liquors. John S. Brown and others remonstrated. The board, on a hearing of the cause, granted the license. v

¶2The remonstrants appealed to the circuit court, where the appeal was dismissed because the remonstrants were not shown, in the remonstrance, to have been inhabitants of the township'in which the liquors were proposed to be sold; leave to amend the remonstrance in this particular being refused. The remonstrants appeal to this court.

¶3The second section of the act of 1861, on this subject, 3 Ind. Stat. 330,'provides, that “either party to such appeal to the circuit court or court of common pleas may demand and have a trial by jury in said circuit court or court of common pleas, and the decision or verdict of such jury shall be final and conclusive, and without appeal therefrom.”

¶4In the case of The Board of Commissioners of Parke County v. Lease, 22 Ind. 261, it was held, that, under this statute, no .appeal lies to this court. We adhere to that decision. See, also, The State v. Vierling, 33 Ind. 99. The language of the statute is a little ambiguous, but we think it was the intention of the legislature that no appeal should lie to this court in such cases. Perhaps'the reason was that the time of this court should not be consumed in the decision of controversies of such character.

¶5The appeal is. dismissed, with costs.

/37/ind/206 · .json · Public domain