TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Ajax Club Liquor License Case

Ajax Club Liquor License Case.

Ajax Club Liquor License Case, 34 A.2d 326 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1943)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Superior Court of Pennsylvania · State Appellate Courts
Decided
October 25, 1943
Docket
Nos. , 93
Judges
Baldrige, Hirt, Keller, Kenworthey, Reno, Rhodes, Stadtfeld
Citations
34 A.2d 326153 Pa. Super. 4731943 Pa. Super. LEXIS 100

Opinion of the Court — Per Curiam

Per Curiam, This appellant club’s liquor license was revoked by the Liquor Control Board after a hearing at which violations of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Act of November 29, 1933, P. L. (Special Session) 15, and its amendments, were proved to have been committed by those in charge of the sale of liquors. On appeal to the Court of Quarter Sessions of Philadelphia County, *474 the action of the board was susthined. At the hearing before that court counsel for appellant admitted that liquor had been sold to non-members, to minors, and to intoxicated persons, and that sales had been made at times and during hours not permitted by law. His contention was that the license should not be revoked on a first citation for violations of the act. That point was likewise presented to this court. There is no merit in it.

Section 410 (47 PS §744-410) provides: “Upon such hearing, if satisfied that any such violation has occurred, or for other sufficient cause, the board shall immediately suspend or revoke the license.”

In Pacewicz Liquor License Case, 152 Pa. Superior Ct. 123 , 31 A. 2d 361 , the same contention was advanced by a restaurant liquor licensee and was denied by us. It is time that holders of liquor licenses understand that they violate the law at the peril of losing their licenses.

Whatever this club may have been in the past, as conducted just prior to the revocation of its license it was only a drinking place. Liquor was sold in open violation of the law, and almost anyone could be a “member” for a day or two, on payment of an insignificant sum, or even on credit. That is not the kind of a ‘club’ contemplated by the Liquor Control Act.

The appeal is dismissed and the order revoking the license is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 10 cases

View all citing references →
1943: 11944: 21946: 11947: 11948: 11953: 11957: 11958: 11974: 119432026peak 1944 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Turner v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board53 A.2d 849 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1947)
  2. Reiter Liquor License Case98 A.2d 465 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1953)
  3. Fumea Liquor License Case142 A.2d 326 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1958)
  4. Andracchio Liquor License Case49 A.2d 843 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1946)
  5. Lehigh Valley Brewery Workers Home Ass'n Liquor License Case35 A.2d 561 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1943)
  6. Elite Social Club & Debating Society Liquor License Case40 A.2d 883 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1944)

Most recent

  1. Commonwealth, Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board v. Latrobe Armed Services Ass'n329 A.2d 549 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1974)
  2. Fumea Liquor License Case142 A.2d 326 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1958)
  3. Labor Lyceum Ass'n12 Pa. D. & C.2d 1 (1957)
  4. Reiter Liquor License Case98 A.2d 465 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1953)
  5. Ortuglio Liquor License Case62 A.2d 69 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1948)
  6. Turner v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board53 A.2d 849 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1947)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Pacewicz Liquor License Case, 31 A.2d 361 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1943) 25

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list