*1 STANFORD, UDALL, J., and C. LA WINDES, JJ.,
PRADE concurring.
Note : having dis- PHELPS Justice
qualified, the MUR- Honorable PORTER
RY, Judge Superior Court of Green- County,
lee called to sit in his stead.
MENDELSOHN et al.
IN AND FOR MARICOPA et
COUNTY al.
No. 5803.
Supreme Court of Arizona.
Oct. 1953. Romley Levy,
Moore M. & John Phoenix, petitioner Mendelsohn. Atty. Gen., by Jones, Ross F. P. James Bartlett, Gen., Atty. petitioner Asst. *2 Duncan.
¡Minné Sorenson, re- Phoenix, & for spondents.
UDALL, Justice. original proceeding
This an for writ prohibition requested by petitioners of Nor- Mendelsohn, hereinafter called Men- man delsohn, Duncan, Super- State A. John Control, Liquor Licenses intendent of superintendent, hereinafter called Superior prevent Maricopa Court of County, Henry and the Honorable S. Stev- thereof, ens, juris- judge assuming as attempting to hear and deter- diction and purportedly the matters at issue on mine superintendent. peal from order of the an application Statutory al- notice of prohibition given of ternative writ respondent, appeared then and answer- ed. alternative writ issued. these: On Febru- The material facts are application 1953, 13, ary Mendelsohn made permission to liquor license held Series Washington him 1402 Street at East address, Arizona, to a city Phoenix, new Phoenix, Maricopa Broadway, 2412 East County, his business at and to conduct new address. A.C.A.1939,
Pursuant to Section 72-105 application amended, copies of this as were supervi- state, filed the clerk the board strants “This pursuant made Maricopa County, posted 72-109, sors at the Arizona Code premises proposed to be licensed. amended.” In application new for a writ prohibition, Mendelsohn and the days ensuing twenty Within the allowed tendent argue that this section confers no statute, (whose by the certain remonstrants appeal upon remonstrants, there- qualifications hereinafter) are set out filed fore proposed assumption jurisdic- objections their written to the transfer with tion Superior Maricopa Court of super- supervisors board of and with County usurpation power. is a 19th, intendent. On the board of March supervisors hearing and recommend- held a It is settled law approval application ed of Mendelsohn’s to appeal only by positive exists force of en transfer his license. law, Duncan, actment of Poy Him Lim v. Ariz. prohibi 181 P.2d and that su- recommendation of the board of prevent tion will lie an inferior tribunal pervisors, arguments and the filed for and from entertaining over which license, against transferring were trans- has jurisdiction, no Superior Duncan v. superintendent, mitted who on 6th *3 County, Court of 193, Pinal 65 177 P. Ariz. day April approved application the 2d 374. transfer the license. The Issue objectors April 9, 1953, Coffer, On Pearl Thus, squarely we are faced with this Harry Coffer, Marshall, Marshall, W. F. N. question: Under Ari- the laws of Mary Cason,' Douglas, Gertrude E. E. zona, 72, Chapter 1, A.C.A.1939, Art. where Douglas Alf hereinafter called remon- superintendent the granted applica- has strants, Superior filed in the Court of Mari- license, tion for transfer of a do County, copa 75384,styling cause No. apposing remonstrants such transfer have “Complaint”, pleading styling themselves court Appellants”, and styling “Plaintiffs and superintendent? from order of the superintendent Mendelsohn and the “De- Appellees”. fendants and Remonstrants The Statute therein contend inter alia that the order A.C.A.1939, 72-109(c), provides: granting wrongful the transfer license is “The decision of the because the conven- unlawful any shall in be final matter relating require does not not be sub- ience will issuance, transfer, renewal, sus- thereby. stantially served pension, license, revocation or un- appeal, upon person aggrieved,
In their notice of served less the within ten decision, superintendent, days (10) Mendelsohn and the remon- of the after date superior court more nor I choose it to what mean—neither files Looking Chapter Six, county Through in licensed less.” which the appeal, Glass, Dodgson. find the such We premises are located. In Charles probate pro- phrase determine have one meaning hear and shall sanity novo, quite hearings, (10) than ten cedure and another not more matter de reason, For Lockwood’s filing the etc. days date of after the Justice phrase appeal, construction of the in Burmister v. Pending determination 443, Prescott, 66, City is 38 Ariz. P. decision and order point dis- not in fact too situation in full force and remain shall tendent —the Apart syntactical its and so- by the similar. otherwise ordered effect unless jurisdiction.” court-of ciological setting phrase has no mean- pecul- ing. nothing There is intrinsic rages greatest the briefs the battle phrase, phrase, qua iar to the that leads one per- phrase meaning of the “the round unwaveringly conclusion the oth- to one “person” word is de- aggrieved”. son question Accordingly, er. of whether of the Act fol- 72-101 as in Section fined “ have these remonstrants partnership, includes asso- lows, ‘Person’ something on more sub- must be bottomed corporation, as well ciation, company pedantic than stantial construction two Mendelsohn makes person”. a natural adjectives and one noun. “person” singular, of the fact much 1-103, plural, but Section A.C.A. and not Analysis of Previous Decisions of stat- general forth the rules setting Superior Court, case of Stanton In the Arizona, refutes utory construction P.2d the facts were 55 Ariz. by telling premise argument based on this applied Patton M. R. that one had plural. include singular does us the and con- licenses The Phrase a license for wholesale distri- trol for Stanton, liquor. held such a bution of has legislature whether findWe license, pro- was the remonstrant appeal can- right to given remonstrants superintendent, ceedings before af- looking be determined that the ordered latter should ter the ex- Our person aggrieved”. phrase “the *4 appeal issue, supe- filed his to Stanton and .cases the law haustive examination rior court. “Aggrieved” and Phrases in Words and Corpus reporter’s transcript in that Secun- The case Aggrieved”, “Person Juris superintendent dum, counsel Law Dic- that and Black’s shows “Aggrieved”, appeal upon Party”, ed., to “Aggrieved s§.me served tionary, 3rd dismiss moved here, upon wit, that Dumpty relied to Hunipty ground told us of what remind to. word, aggriev- not “the was just it remonstrant I use a means Alice—“When by appeal pro- brought an meaning unsuccessful for a ed” within Liquors require respondent Spirituous (Judge Act. visions of the mo- superior ruling Ferguson) stipulation reserved a on to honor a court and as^ tion, evidence, proceeded sign applicant’s taking appeal superior then after to the court superintendent’s ruling, the matter its merits from the determine on superintendent upon by in judge agreed parties. affirmed the action of the al- necessary implica- By granting peremptory, the license. ternative writ made was tion, entering its superior alia inter we held that the remonstrants had parties ipso that it judgment must determined were not facto appeal by have to an jurisdiction applicant, they and that while might in- appeal, they tervene such took the court brought be- By was certiorari the matter they judge and the found them. But un- upon allega- an fore this court for review fortunately, wording some in the Lane juris- tion that the lower court without was opinion infers that remonstrants do- not judgment in entry diction in the of said appeal right to have the ruling adverse competent that there evidence was no superior court. We this was submit public support that conven- finding its dicta, because this issue was not before the substantially required ience and would be court. by ap- the license served the issuance of plied leg- for. contended that the Stanton Mayberry Duncan, 68 Ariz. islature intended establish as con- 364,365, P.2d was a license matter principle trolling in the issuance brought appeal before us a licenses, system regulated monopoly. judgment the trial court in a certiorari rejected this We contention and held that proceeding. By analogy it consonant superior and the court with our conclusion in the instant case. did abuse their discretion exceed appellee There Duncan moved to dismiss liq- jurisdiction granting Patton a ground on appellant that question our license. The of whether Stan- Mayberry was neither “party beneficially a ton had the statute, interested” under the certiorari nor presented court in the first instance was not “party aggrieved” a meaning within' the us, directly Appar- nor was decided. judgments appealable By statute. ently it taken for granted was the lower minute order the motion to dismiss was de jurisdiction court had to entertain the was; nied, and the then determined peal review certiorari was on its merits. Thus held that one who we. proper in this court. party proceedings was not before status Ferguson, Lane v. sim Ariz. 156 P.2d —whose the, original was an ply mandamus action member of of a buf *5 copy provides a suffi- that (b) tion 72-105 further interests were affected—had whose pe- order, together with the written issuance and of in the matter cient interest file, titions bring certio- on shall be sent liquor to licenses transfer tendent, juris- by the and thus force of statute test the in the rari parties proceedings the or- remonstrants are superintendent’s the dictional bases of superintendent. the before the same. regarding ders su- Section 72-105 declares that the (d) to Be Heard Right A Citizen’s perintendent and shall consider the order origi- (b) A.C.A. 72-105 Section possession relating other the facts his upon the enacted, no nally set limitations qualifications applicant, the and the Sec- granting of oppose the or right to favor license 72-108(a) tion declares that the law as amended the license. Under satisfactory showing shall issue after parties such 126, Laws of Chapter capability, qualifications and relia- persons, class of a limited come must bility applicant, public of the and that the viz.: requires substan- convenience and will be “ * ** fide person who is a bona any tially by such issuance. served twenty-one years or age of resident changes have been made which property owning leasing residing, or more Lane, Stanton, law since pro- radius from one-half mile within * cases, strengthen * Mayberry our con and licensed, premises to be posed to be heard on viction those entitled arguments to file written given the potential have granting objections thereto with or thereof in favor issuing right of matters city clerk. licenses, transferring liquor the Act en and procedure governs both issu- The same parties, participation by name visages four licenses, 72- transfer of Section and ance State, applicant; through ly: proponents opponents 108(d), political superintendent; govern the local entitled file issuance or county body, city council or ing either su city arguments with the council or written will be pervisors; and those citizens supervisors county twenty within board by granting the license peculiarly affected posting notice of days after neighbor of their close ties to the because premises proposed on the li- plication oper business will hood wherein censed, 72-105(b). case that under ate. The Lane indicated time, body any then considers member The local the Act at that matter remonstrant, might public order be a recommending general enters its approved, any disapproved, given interest of remon application be therefore the than that of without was more other submitted recommendation. Sec- strant no revenue, produce primary has as its changes Since the citizen in the State. proponent protection aim the welfare law, opponent or health, personal preserving eliminating in- more direct and in- have a must temperance social undesirable in the matter. terest *6 commonly and moral effects associated 1 Statutory Construction ”* * * with the saloon. principle cardinal of statu The worthy promotes Our herein holding these interpretation is that the intent tory of objects by assuring ample opportunity for is to be ascertained and follow legislature investigation qualifications ap- of the second, Arizona, at least in ed. is that plicant exigencies public. and the liberally shall be construed to ef statutes promote objects justice, and to fect Another established rule of statu 101, princi A.C.A.1939. These Section tory phrases is construction that words and 1— interpretation precedence take ples of over in a statute are to be accorded their obvious others, remaining only rules being all corollary meaning. natural of A in ancillary proper and used to assist legislature presumed is the rule that the forth, application of the two first set State express meaning to in its clear a manner as McEuen, 385, v. 42 26 Ariz. P.2d 1005. The possible.- give construing when should statute Applying principles these construction, it a such as will ac sensible bar, at we way case see that the clearest complish possi intent and if legislative express only intent applicant ble or avoid avoid absurd conclusion right have the should to use the invalid, making statute Aire State v. phrase, “the aggrieved”. Simi 562; Co., 342, Mfg. 206 P.2d 68 Ariz. search larly, way express the clearest the in Frye Co., v. Fire South Phoenix Volunteer only tent remonstrant should have 163, 71 224 Ariz. P.2d 651. right phrase, is to use the laws of Arizona are aggrieved”. remonstrant “the Instead plainly designed welfare, protect specific terms, these more legislature health, peace, temperance, safety all phrase person “the aggrieved”, chose by providing reg citizens for the strict signification a broader which has than ei manufacture, ulation and control of the reasonably capable and is ther of embrac sale, and distribution of alcoholic bever legislature Had the ing both. meant ages. Statutory Sutherland on Construc right to one parties limit two it tion, ed., 7203, 3rd Sec. comments: used, could have would have doubtless
“Liquor legislation, used, petitioners’ control while in- If more limited term. cidentally theory adopted, intended in some then were cases
'170 application may by party
whose losing been denied exercised had ” * * * right proceedings. have a these Whis- would peal. Furth, 366, 500, very This one-sided sen Ark. 84 would make a S.W. v. 73 plain 501, 161; opinion statute it. 68 L.R.A. and see Freeman our meaning Lazarus, 680; 247, is that the a situa- 61 legislature, v. Ark. 32 S.W. with, tion McCullough, 159, such as we are here confronted In re Ark. 10 S. right upon appli- conferred the 259. W.
cant and remonstrant alike. ruling A similar was made the Su- gen-
This construction accords with the preme Court of Connecticut the cases of eral rule set forth in Sutherland on Statu- Beard, Appeal 64 Conn. 30 A. Construction, ed., tory 6807: 3rd LeRoy, and Kamerman Conn. Appeals. Allowing
“Statutes Stat- A.2d 175. appeal are lib- giving utes Conclusion erally jus- construed in furtherance of tice, Unquestionably, legislation en- interpretation which will our and an . visages participation by the general a forfeiture is not work of that provisions administration of the laws. limiting Thus favored. *7 interpreta- appeal bringing are liberal- more reasonable an We believe the time for pursu- scope this party of ly interpreted so that the tion the Act is that of protesting to remedy appeal participation will not be ing is not limited of Like- mere technicalities. superin- on body defeated or the governing the local limiting the cas- wise, interpretation appeals tendent, initiating but extends may which an from es from orders to the court may bring or the brought, right of superintendent. Granting the ** preferred appeal is not it to the applicant denying while peal Other spirit from of Cases would run counter citizens Jurisdictions problem permeating of the whole of regulation with the deal strict Many decisions “person aggrieved” phrase construing persons upon door- whose The Act. though few of them person”, “aggrieved operate, liquor and .steps business will But, analogous fact situations. with deal businesses, homes, and families will whose dealt with statute sim- Arkansas thereby, given the same affected .be appli- ours, either the held that ilar engage in the seek to .rights as those who appeal, could stat- remonstrant cant liquor traffic. ing, n Notwithstanding anything “ * * said in the * is right of The contrary, we hold the re- case to Lane aggrieved, and party guarantied opinion I authored su- a unanimous monstrants have a of court, it is said: perior court. “ * * * legislature, in cre- that the quashed. Alternative writ Department Liquor Li- ating STANFORD, J., and PHELPS C. Control, create censes and intended to WINDES, JJ., concur. control over and establish state-wide liquors. The intoxicating traffic PRADE, (dissenting). LA Justice is un- control regulation need of its agree the determination I do disputed. system In a search for this court by majority members of made effective, regu- impartial, and uniform statutory interpreta- the reason that the traffic, our lation and of this control reasonably permitted under made is not tion 76, Chapter legislature enacted first majority The conclude the statutes. 46, 1933, Chapter Sess.Laws then Sess. saying: 64, Chapter Laws Sess. then later liquor “Unquestionably, legisla- our Chapter A.C.A. being Laws participation envisages gen- tion departure system This 1939. is a administration of the eral prior long that which had existed here the more rea- laws. We believe prohibition. to the advent national interpretation of the Act is sonable ev- regulation and control Then scope participation of this is that the phase vest- ery traffic protesting to the local not limited bod- exclusively governing ed local superintendent, body governing or the through the entire act is Running ies. initiating appeals extends to but traffic in in- idea that the the central superior court from the orders liquors problem that toxicating is a superintendent. Granting state-wide; correspondingly that denying while appeal to the supervision control can state would run counter to the to the citizens adequately cope with it. regulation permeating spirit strict charged with the administra- tendent persons up- Act. the whole and enforcement act” tion doorsteps the business whose on supplied.) (Emphasis businesses, operate, and whose will this conclusion: Then followed *8 homes, be families will affected only partici- remnant of local rights “The thereby, given the same as engage liq- who seek to those administration of -the pation in the traffic.” is contained 72- uor traffic section specifi-' This section A.C.A.1939. Lane pointed in our case of out As appli- 236, 238, cally provides that notice of the 184, 156 P.2d Ferguson, 62 Ariz. no- and shall determine whether the con- cation for a license must be substantially requires a premises, ‘with statement and will be ticed on venience person opposed requiring any the is- served the issuance such license. license his In deter- (id.) suance of the to file written Section 72-108 as amended. ” objections mining he with clerk.’ these matters shall receive the city pro- advice of the it council where the time the Lane case was decided At posed that the will located in an be objections file could incorporated city town; if outside of By amendment local boards. incorporated city or town the advice will object has circumscribed been supervisors. The come from the board of reside, only persons lease own or those na- advice in either instance will be property within a half-mile radius of approval, disapproval, (1) (2) ture premises voice proposed licensed can (3) a submission without recommenda- objections. By the statute this amendment (id.) 72-105 tion. Section as amended. recognized proponents for the first has time transfer for the of a license or issuance body governing It is when the rec- thereof, a half-mile they and if live within that a license do issue that it ommends not they arguments in may file radius written compelled to a statement insert application. favor of the case, In the reasons therefor. instant ac- cording allegations the writ of opinion I am still of that all of body governing prohibition, recom- traffic relating licensing statutes the license. The mended the in liquors regulation demonstrate that its required body was furnish governing con- control is a matter of state-wide its for recommend- reasons a statement cern, supervision and and that its entire ing Nevertheless statute the transfer. Liq- Department of lodged control is provides that super- uor under the Licenses and Control “ * ** petitions All submitted to superintendent vision thereof. body twenty within the governing fixed to be issued is number of licenses period pro- for the day filing (20) 72-107, statute, As to A.C.A.1939. test shall be transmitted to first issue in the whether license should copy of the tendent with the certified solely within the discretion instance is amended, 72-105(b) order.” Sec. as review, as superintendent, subject (id.) (Emphasis supplied.) 72C109(b) provided (id.) in Section writ, li- determining petition whether a According for the amended. is appears had before should issue cense qual- capability, petition into the fact there con- mandated look him applicant, taining approximately opposing names reliability ifications
173 we come subdivi- not live cretion. It when transfer, whom did some building (id.) of Section 72-109 as amend- sion (c) radius of a half-mile within any claim can be made that ob- ed that proposed to transfer it was into which parties proceedings to the jectors not are for business, were and hence license perfect pe- including purposes all another object, together with entitled part pro- (c) in signa- This subdivision approximately containing tition within : residents, lived vides all of whom tures of radius, that petitioning the half-mile decision of the “The pub- that ground allowed on
transfer be any relating final in matter shall be required it. lic convenience renewal, issuance, transfer, sus- license, pension, un- or revocation of provisions subparagraph (d) By ten aggrieved, less the within superintendent re- section, when the this days deci- (10) after the date body governing from the the order ceives sion, appeal files an to- such order required to “consider he li- county court of the in which the possession facts in his gether with other ”* * * premises censed are located. appli- qualifications of relating to the specificallyre- (Emphasis supplied.) This does cant.” section pe- examine the quire statute, I am in giving, satisfied that the statute against. titions for or Since person” appeal “aggrieved to the against petitions for be requires that exclusively refers to the for govern- the order of the transmitted with issuance, license transfer or renewal of a in- body that it was it is fair to assume ing exclusively applies to a licensee also superintendent should take that the tended suspended or re- who has had his petitions examine cognizance of superintendent. Subsection voked Presumably might get he some in- them. suspen- provides for the (b) of this section in formation such examination hear- after a licenses revocation sion or exercising in assisting him his discretion. public might large segment of the A ing. appear it would from the statutes So far a li- by the fact that be inconvenienced petitioners against that had not ac- suspended or revoked had been cense quired proceedings except status in the announced wholly with the disagreement boards, give advice to the local who will But suspension or revocation. reasons who transmit that advice officer is ul- per- they “aggrieved said that can it be the matter timately to decide as the state meaning within sons” legislature, per- in whom the that (cid:127)official over- be said those Can it statute? recommending regulation were administration all sons for their con- granted license be liquor, has vested ultimate dis- traffic statutory per- rules of revoked. The resort to aggrieved classified venience can be effect The ma- construction and definitions within the statute? sons and the singular plural query that the includes the have to answer jority would per- granting aggrieved of an to an consistent. they if were to be the affirmative “per- interpreted son must to mean affirmative an- ridiculousness of *10 can persons opinion "persons”, son” majority means and apparent. is The swer objectors objectors hence only refer to and and is possible this situation has overlooked aggrieved persons, are is most tenuous. fact that there wholly the concerned with sorely and aggrieved objectors who are are unhappy, persons That there are who the residents If hence entitled to dissatisfied, by the “aggrieved” provoked or community license who want in a not of decision the does parties to neighborhood cannot be in their upon aggrieved make them the objectors appeal, how can become then an appeal conferred. right whom the of parties appeal? supervision to an the superin- contemplate that the The statutes of the traffic the state has and control of the wishes tendent should be advised supervision provided an over-all for objectors proponents of judgment both the with the au- entrusted contemplate they do that because but thority supervise ac- discretion to unhappy their they are or dissatisfied that the of statutes. The to the dictates cording mak- takes on the stature of dissatisfaction portion for a limited provides here statute parties right to invoke ing them with the public give to be heard and to processes Superior Court solemn superin- and recommendations advice super- of the state review the decisions reaching him in an to assist honest tendent instance the intendent. In the first citizens as to whether conven- conclusion are to affected whose interests be is- by the will be subserved issuance or ience license, suance or denial of make known superin- of a license. When by advising their desires in matter he has tendent has his discretion exercised in whom some discretion is local boards When exercised the discretion of the state. The local in turn then vested. boards privilege provide for the the statutes do not order, by an thus transmit their advice nec- proponents objectors or appeal exercising of some of the state’s essarily sov- appears to me The has It written right legislature ereignty. does not exist. local provided' right appeal (order) vests in board that the judgment the desires person”. aggrieved than or wishes aggrieved dignity “the more person, appeal, objectors. appeal purpose proponents can the not authorize for a license or li- does be statute suspended decisions of su- has had his local boards censee perintendent, regardless of how dissatisfied might because the
the boards
tendent, judgment supervising in his view,
liquor laws, from a state-wide deter- opinion of the local board is
mines that
circumscribed, unreasonably prejudiced, or provincialism a fair inter- Still
evidences
pretation opinion majority confers
upon governing local boards interpretation elastic under the person”. who is an “aggrieved appeal in the in-
There being no case,
stant Superior without Court was
jurisdiction to entertain the peremptory reason a should issue. writ
IDEAL FOOD PRODUCTS CO. al. et et al.
RUPE
No. 5484.
Supreme Court of Arizona.
Oct. 1953.