48 S.E.2d 721 | Ga. | 1948
Had the petition for mandamus in the instant case sought to compel the mayor and council to fix terms and conditions under which wine licenses might be issued, as in the case of Thomas v. Ragsdale,
The defendants filed to the petition a general demurrer, which the judge of the lower court sustained. The case is here on a direct bill of exceptions assigning error on that order.
(After stating the foregoing facts.) Before taking up the controlling question in this case, it is well to point out that the prayers of the petition are not for a mandamus to compel the city authorities to accept and pass upon an application for a wine license, as in Harmon v. James,
In this connection, the rule, as repeatedly stated by this court, is that, before mandamus will issue, "the law must not only authorize the act to be done, but must require its performance." Hart v. Head,
After determining that the business of retailing wines is illegal without a license, and one subject to strict police regulation, and that the grant or refusal of such a license is discretionary with the local governing authorities, it follows that the right to obtain such a license by mandamus is altogether analogous to the right of an individual to obtain by mandamus a license to engage in the business of retailing malt beverages or other spirituous liquors. In cases of the latter character, under repeated rulings of this court, mandamus will not lie to compel the issuance of a license, and its denial does not deprive the applicant of anything to which he has an absolute right, nor does it deprive him of life, liberty, or property. Ward v.Drennon,
Under the foregoing rulings, the trial court did not err in dismissing the petition for mandamus on general demurrer.
Judgment affirmed. Duckworth, Presiding Justice, Atkinson,Wyatt, Head, and Candler, Justices, and Judge A. M. Anderson,concur. *64