JULIUS STONE, DOING BUSINESS AS MIDWEST LIQUOR COMPANY, Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.
Case summary
Claimant sought refund of a liquor license fee after abandoning his business before engaging in it. The court denied the claim, holding that no statute authorized a refund for voluntary surrender of a license.
Cases cited: Samuel Block vs. State, 9 C. C. R. 453; Emil Kellner & Co. vs. State, 9 C. C. R. 465; S. A. Beals doing business as Wilson-Hazel Drug Co. vs. State, 9 C. C. R. 456
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- ILLINOIS LIQUOR CONTROL ACT-license issued under-claim for refund of *fee paid for-where licensee never engaged in business for which issued-* *award for must be denied.* The same question involved herein was before the court in *Robb* vs. *State*, 9 Court of Claims Reports, 156, and the decision in that case is controlling herein.
The Complaint herein alleges in substance that on or about August 1st, 1936, claimant intended to engage in the liquor business as an importing distributor at 1330 Broadway, Rockford, Illinois, and to that end paid a license fee in the amount of $229.17 and received in return a license issued by the Illinois Liquor Commission under date of August 3rd, 1936, which license expires June 30th, 1937; that immediately after the receipt of such license the claimant abandoned his intention of engaging in business as an importing distributor of alcoholic liquors in this State and never in fact at any time became engaged in said business, nor is he now engaged [*479] ment was voluntary or involuntary, and although the method of its collection was irregular.”
In 15 R. C. L., p. 315, Sec. 76, the rule is stated in the following language: “It seems to be well settled that ordinarily a licensee does not or the voluntary surrender of his license, become entitled to the return of the license fee, in proportion to the unexpired term, in the absence of a statutory enactment to the contrary.”
The statute does not authorize a refund under the facts in this case, and under the law as above set forth, we have no authority to allow an award.
A similar conclusion was reached in the following cases: Samuel Block vs. State, 9 C. C. R. 453; Emil Kellner & Co. vs. State, 9 C. C. R. 465; and S. A. Beals doing business as Wilson-Hazel Drug Co. vs. State, 9 C. C. R. 456.
Under the rule as set forth in the cases cited, we have no authority to allow an award, and the motion of the Attorney General must therefore be sustained.
Motion to dismiss allowed. Case dismissed.