Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1973 )


Menu:
  •         THE     ATTBRNEY            GENERAL
    OFTEXAS
    Hon. 0. N. Humphreys, Jr.            Opinion No. H-l
    Administrator, Texas
    Alcoholic Beverage Commission        Re:   Whether the provisions
    Sam Houston State Office Bldg.             of Article 666-17(2)
    Austin, Texas 78711                        b&   V;;;;;'E,;;n;;
    PackAge Stores that
    were in existence
    prior to its effective
    Dear Mr. Humphreys:                        date?
    Article 666-17(2)(a), Vernon's Penal Code, as amended
    In 1951, provides:
    "Where a major,ityof the ownership in
    each of more than one '(1)legal entity, holding
    Package Store Permits under this Act, is
    owned by one (1) person, or by persons related
    within the first degree of consanguinity, the
    businesses thereof may be consolidated under
    one (1) legal entity and the permits shall be
    issued to such entity notwithstanding any
    other provision of this Act and further pro-
    vided that after such consolidation it shall
    be illegal to transfer any of such permits
    to any other county."
    Your request for an opinion asks whether this provision
    appliesonly to those Package Store Permits that were in exiS-
    tence on its effective date.
    You advise that the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
    has permitted consolidation since the effective date of the
    original enactment of the provision in 1949.
    Except for the use of "is owned" instead of "shall be
    owned' or some similar Ilanguage,we see nothing in the
    statute to indicate an intention .thatIt be limited to those
    Package Store Permits 4n effect at the date of ,i,ts
    enactment.
    -6334-
    Hon. 0. N. Humphreys, Jr., page 2      (H-1)
    Since, in 1951 and thereafter prior to the amendment of
    the Texas Liquor Control Act by Acts 1971, 62nd Legislature,
    R.S. Ch. 65, p.681, all permits automatically expired on
    August   31 of each year, such a restricted construction
    would render the statute virtually meaningless.
    Generally a statute is held to operate prospectively
    unless a contrary construction is required by its plain and
    unequivocal language. Article 1, Section 16, Constitution
    of the State of Texas; Life Insurance Co. v. Rey 
    50 Tex. 511
    (1878); Cox v. Robleon 
    105 Tex. 42b
    150 S W 1149(1912).
    Interestingly this rule is stated s~ecificaliy in the Code
    Construction Act, Art. 51129b-2,V.A.C.S., Section 3.02.
    Finally, the construction placed upon the Act by the
    Commission is entitled to considerable weight.
    We therefore conclude that the "consolidation" pro-
    vision of Article 666-17(2)(a) is not limited to Package
    Store Permits in existence on its effective date and we
    answer your question in the negative.
    -SUMMARY-
    Article 666-17(2)(a), Vernon's Texas Penal
    Code, which provides for consolidation of entities
    holding Package Store Permits into one (1) entity
    under certain conditions, is prospective in appli-
    cation and is not limited to those entities holding
    Package Store Permits at the time of its effective
    date.
    *rs   very truly,
    Attorney General of Texas
    APPROVED:
    bAVID M KENDALL Chairman
    Opinion'C!ommitte&
    -6:j35-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: H-1

Judges: John Hill

Filed Date: 7/2/1973

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017