McGee v. Beall
McGee v. Beall
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
The bill of exceptions in this case was prepared during the term at which the judgment appealed from was rendered, but the president of the board of supervisors for some reason not stated failed to sign it until after the adjournment of the term. The appellants, having done all that was in their power by preparing and tendering a proper bill to the proper officer, ought not to suffer by reason of his neglect to promptly sign the same.
The record nowhere shows that the applicant, Beall, was a resident of the county of Holmes, and the case falls precisely within the principles announced in the case of McCreary v. Rhodes & Silk, ante, 308.
It is manifest, we think, that the objection now sustained was not
The judgment of the circuit court is therefore reversed, and a judgment entered here vacating and annulling the order of the Board of Supervisors of Holmes County granting to the appellee license to retail liquors as therein recited.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- H. B. McGee v. D. W. Beall
- Cited By
- 7 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Bill of Exceptions. To decision of supervisors. Failure to sign. When a bill of exceptions to the decision of a board of supervisors is prepared and tendered to the president of the board during the term at which such decision was rendered, the exceptor will not be permitted to suffer because of the failure of the president to sign it before the adjournment of the board, as required by law. 2. Retailing Liquor. Petition for license. Code 1880, $ 1099. Residence of petitioner. Jurisdictional fact. Under $ 1099 of the Code of 1880, authorizing boards of supervisors !‘ to grant license to any person resident within their respective counties” to retail liquors, a license granted without it being shown to the board, by the petition or otherwise, that the petitioner is a resident of the county in which he presents his application, is invalid. McCreary et al• v. Rhodes & Silk et al., ante, 308, cited. And such objection being a jurisdictional one, may be raised for the first time in this court, in a ease properly brought here.