In re Berg

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania January 5, 1891

In re Berg, 139 Pa. 354 (Pa. 1891)

21 A. 77; 1891 Pa. LEXIS 1002

Clark, Cueiam, Greek, McCollum, Mitchell, Paxson, Pee, Sterrett, Williams

Opinion of the Court

Pee, Cueiam:

There was an appeal in each of the above cases from the *358refusal of the court below to grant the petitioner a license to sell liquors at retail. The appeal is a substitute for a certiorari, and brings up nothing but the record. That shows the petition and the refusal of the court below to grant the license. The reasons for such refusal are not material. They do not properly form any part of the record.

Affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name: PETITION OF HENRY BERG, FOR LICENSE. Petition of Daniel Ritter, for License
Cited By: 5 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: 1. An appeal, taken under the act of May 9, 1889, P. L. 158,* from an order refusing a petition for a license to sell liquors at retail under the act of May 13, 1887, P. L. 108, being but a substitute for a common-law certiorari, brings up nothing but the record, of which the reasons given for the refusal form no part and will not be reviewed.† 2. Whether, when a borough is created out of part of a township wherein a special act is in force prohibiting the granting of licenses to sell liquor “ for drinking purposes,” the prohibition continues as to petitions of citizens of the borough for licenses to sell liquors at retail under the act of May 13, 1887, P. L. 108, not decided.*