*1
а
number
stated
of unlocated acres to be
grantor,
selected
will
grantee.”
1087;
A.L.R.
Turner v.
131 Tex.
Hunt,
Both instruments involved this casе contained the following language:
“It was further agreed between these parties two if the note paid was nоt in full within five years the borrower (J.A.P.) agrees to transfer to the lender acres acres in the second of his [7% note] fаrm Penna. parcel. Jamison, “It was further agreed that not more than per fifty cent parcel (50%) will be on either Poor House or Dark Hoad.” Hollow
It is my view that agreements gave the appellant the right take any portion of appellees farm which fit the description as to size and location. Since this interpretation of the сontract renders the general principle stated above I would inapplicable, reverse the decree grant specific performance.
Mr. Chief in this dissent.
Greenspan Liquor License Case. *2 J., Argued C. Bell, November 1969. 17, Pomeroy, Roberts O’Brien, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, JJ.
rеargument May refused 1970. 8, Attorney General, Assistant Thomas J. Shannon, appellant. Liquor Pennsylvania Control Board, for Laрowshy, Abe March 1970: Mr. 20, Cohen, decision of the an from a This is vacating Pennsylvania Court Philadelphia County af- Quarter Pennsylvаnia Liquor Con- the decision
firmed Sidney Greenspan, imposing trol Board t/a Code. violations Bar, Court, As stated fol- arе as 29, 433, May Po- lows. “On 1966 officers premises Department lice entered the licensed paraphernalia. ar- found numbers Philadelphia police officers rested. On June patrons being legal observed sold drinks after clos- ing time of the bar. The licensee was arrested. proceedings
“When these criminal at- came Pennsylvania Liquor tention of the ci- Board, (January 1967) tations issued were to show cause why the license should not revoked gambling maintaining Code in paraphernalia making after After sales hours. *3 imposed hearing, the Board of and re- $200 $150 appeаled spectively. Quar- The to ter and court Sessions, affirmed the decisions appeals.” the Board and dismissed thе licensee’s The issue raised sole this no- concerns the provisions April tice the Act of P. L. January Art. as the Act of IV, §471, amended, 13, 1966, part L. §4-471. P. 47 P.S. 1301, §2, relevant provided penalty by that section states: “No this sec- imposed by any tion any shall be or board court for provided this act unless the enforce- or ment officer the board notifies the licensеe of its alleged nature and of the date of the violation within completion which days.” ninety in no exceed event shall us is specified question whether notice as the stat- given independ- ute must be when Board makes:no investigation of ent its own but rather issues citations solely supplied basis of information by other police departments. agеncies as local such No such given notice to was The Court held Liquor License Point Bar, in man, decision that its Elf A. 2d 395 212 Pa. Cаse, Supe opinion controlling. That by the “[t]he A. 2d at 396 at 166-7, rior Ct. proceeding police a criminal is although notice and courts the criminal handled gotten may Board to the have action the criminal requirement not fulfill the does the licensee, required as legislature notice be that fully that made so he is to the licensee amendment, еndangered to be is about his license aware citation.” of a issuance contemplates problem arises because the This or only the Board enforcement which the situation independent investigation. When made officers have specifies what the section situation exists, that factual given must be and at what time it must be notice provision purpose give given. warn of this is to that his activities have been under to the licensee en his license is about to be employee dangered. If a licensee his is arrested and charged of our laws activities violative criminal with violative of the has are also he Code, the essence the notice that the Code received requires. to look It is at the realities and when an arrest has been made con situation, Liq both the criminal thаt violates law and duct surely Liq licensee must know that uor Code, proceed may against well uor Control corresponding steps protect take that he should his *4 Superior the Elfman, interests. discussed Superior 212 Trees Tavern, Inc., Pа. L-C Green Pa. 2d at that “under 240 A. the circumstances by any delay licensee was not the harmed in that case he reсeived even better notice because in notice than re brought the quired violation the Act, home arrest of the the bartender----."1 The arrest the information filed after the fur warrant requires nishes the notice the licensee аnd therefore the Board need not follow the licensee or his em requirements when (a) §471 arrested for ployee is a crime that is also a violation Code and the Board and its officers (b) independent make no sur the incident rounding reports but only rely materials other supplied by agencies.
The man case is distinguishable from present Elf it the сitation was issued as the result of an investigation by under- taken after an arrest had been made the Philadel- phia police. Because that independent had been the licensee made, was entitled to notice as рrescribed by §471.
Since it was not give appellee the statu- tory the order of notice, Court is vacated, Quarter affirm- the decisions of the Liquor Control Board is rein- stated.
Dissenting Opinion Eagen Me. : I dissent and would affirm the unanimous Order of the Superior Court on of Judge Watkins.
Mr. Chief Justice this dissent. Tavern, Inc., In L-C Oreen Trees Court held that unnecessary notice was bеcause the notice amendment prior and the was not retroactive violation occurred to the effective act. date