2025 Code of Georgia
Title 3 - Alcoholic Beverages (Chs. 1 — 15)
Chapter 5 - Malt Beverages (Arts. 1 — 4)
Article 3 - Local License Requirements and Regulations for Manufacture, Distribution, and Sale (§§ 3-5-40 — 3-5-43)

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Sale of malt beverages is privilege, and denial of license does not deprive accused of anything to which the accused has an absolute right. Collier v. State, 54 Ga. App. 346, 187 S. E. 843, 1936 Ga. App. LEXIS 574 (1936); Ebling v. City of Rome, 54 Ga. App. 608, 188 S. E. 727, 1936 Ga. App. LEXIS 712 (1936); Acree v. Ragsdale, 60 Ga. App. 717, 4 S. E.2d 708, 1939 Ga. App. LEXIS 151 (1939); Lamb v. Fedderwitz, 68 Ga. App. 233, 22 S. E.2d 657, 1942 Ga. App. LEXIS 100 (1942), aff'd, 195 Ga. 691, 25 S. E.2d 414, 1943 Ga. LEXIS 551 (1943); Hudon v. North Atlanta, 108 Ga. App. 370, 133 S. E.2d 58, 1963 Ga. App. LEXIS 647 (1963).

Nature of license and power of revocation. —

A license to sell beer in this state is neither a contract nor a right of property within legal and constitutional meaning of those terms. It is no more than a temporary permit to do that which would otherwise be unlawful, and forms part of internal police system of this state. Hence, authority which granted license retains power to revoke it for due cause. Ebling v. City of Rome, 54 Ga. App. 608, 188 S. E. 727, 1936 Ga. App. LEXIS 712 (1936).

Charge that sale of alcoholic beverages has been made without alleging that no license has been obtained does not constitute a crime. Plemmons v. State, 58 Ga. App. 131, 198 S. E. 104, 1938 Ga. App. LEXIS 203 (1938).

State not only must allege but also prove that defendant had no license to sell beer in prosecution for selling without license. Cheek v. State, 98 Ga. App. 874, 107 S. E.2d 247, 1959 Ga. App. LEXIS 1001 (1959).

Enforcement of licensing regulation by writ of mandamus. —

Since no one has inherent right to engage in intoxicating liquor business, licensing regulation is not proper subject for enforcement by writ of mandamus. Lindsey v. Hill, 221 Ga. 518, 145 S. E.2d 556, 1965 Ga. LEXIS 515 (1965).

Indictment need not specify kind of beer sold. —

An allegation that accused sold beer in county without first obtaining permit to do so from governing authority of such county is a good indictment; it need not specify kind of beer sold. Williams v. State, 73 Ga. App. 421, 36 S. E.2d 839, 1946 Ga. App. LEXIS 319 (1946).

Opinion Notes

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Legislative intent. —

The General Assembly intended that business of selling malt beverages be in hands of some person other than licensing authority, and did not intend for municipality to be licensing power in municipality and also licensee. 1948-49 Ga. Op. Att'y Gen. 260.

General Assembly, in legalizing sale of malt beverages, intended for municipalities to be part of machinery for proper control and supervision of sale of malt beverages within municipalities, and did not intend to place municipalities in business of selling beer with public funds in competition with private business. 1948-49 Ga. Op. Att'y Gen. 260.

No authority for municipalities to sell malt beverages. —

Unless express power has been generally conferred upon municipalities by General Assembly to engage in selling of malt beverages, as now legalized and codified, there is no authority of law for municipality to engage in such business. 1948-49 Ga. Op. Att'y Gen. 260.

A license to deal in malt beverages is not a right but a privilege.

1948-49 Ga. Op. Att'y Gen. 264.

Sale of beer where county has voted “dry”. —

Where county has voted “dry,” it is still permissible for county, or any municipality therein, to issue licenses for sale of beer. 1954-56 Ga. Op. Att'y Gen. 455.

Research References & Practice Aids

Hierarchy Notes:

O. C. G. A. Title 3

O. C. G. A. Title 3, Ch. 5