Middlekauff v. Adams
Middlekauff v. Adams
Opinion of the Court
This is an appeal from the judgment of the trial court denying a writ of mandamus to compel the city council of the city of Lexington to revoke a liquor license, and to fix a time for hearing a remonstrance against the issuing of the license. There is some conflict in the evidence, but it may reasonably be said that the following facts are established by the record: The relator is an attorney at law residing in the city of Lexington. He was employed by one saloon-keeper to prosecute remonstrance proceedings against the granting of a license, to W. J. Horrigan, another saloon-keeper. He prepared and filed with the city clerk on April 29, 1905, a remonstrance, stating facts sufficient to prevent the issuing of a license. The remonstrance was signed: “David Cole, Remonstrator. Oscar Middlekauff.” On May 1 following two additional remonstrances were filed, one signed: “David Cole, Remon-strator,” and the other “David Cole, Remonstrator, by Oscar Middlekauff.” At 4 o’clock P. M. of that day, at a meeting of the city council, the time for hearing the several .remonstrances was set for 7 o’clock P. M. on the following day, and the council adjourned until 7 o’clock P. M.
The relator was present in the council chamber when these proceedings were had, and made no objection or protest, and the council adjourned. After adjournment the relator complained that the proceeding was illegal, and on the following day filed- a new remonstrance, with a praecipe demanding subpoenas for witnesses, and that the council take action on his remonstrance. This request was refused, and the refusal resulted in the petition for mandamus. He now insists that he was one of the original remonstrators, and that his remonstrance was never withdrawn, and that the action of the council taken at the evening meeting On May 1 was illegal. There are two answers to this contention: First, that he was present when the resolution was adopted showing the withdrawal of all remonstrances, and permitted the council to act on the assumption that they were withdrawn, and made no objection to such course; second, the council proceeded upon the theory that he was an attorney for the remon-strator, and that he appeared in that capacity only. He was advised prior to the evening meeting that the remon-strator Cole had signed a written withdrawal of all remonstrances interposed by him against the issuing of the
We conclude that the judgment of the district court was right, and recommend that it be affirmed.
By the Court: For the reasons stated in the foregoing opinion, the judgment of the district court is
Affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Oscar Middlekauff v. Frank Adams
- Status
- Published