## Facts

- J.D. Clark operated a tavern licensed to sell liquor near Crown Drug Company, a licensed drugstore that also sold liquor at retail.
- Crown accepted liquor orders by telephone at its store and delivered the liquor to customers by messenger, collecting payment upon or after delivery.
- Clark alleged Crown’s telephone-and-delivery practice violated Missouri’s Liquor Control Act and caused competitive harm to his business.
- Clark sought an injunction barring Crown from selling liquor via telephone orders with messenger delivery.
- Clark did not prove a specific, quantified monetary loss; he relied on asserted illegality and competitive injury.
- The circuit court issued an injunction against Crown; the court of appeals affirmed by a divided vote, and the case reached the Missouri Supreme Court on certification.

## Issues

1. Whether Missouri’s Liquor Control Act prohibited a licensed retailer from accepting liquor orders by telephone at the licensed premises and delivering by messenger to customers.
2. Whether, for liquor-law purposes, the “sale” was completed at the licensed premises upon telephone acceptance (with title passing then), notwithstanding later delivery and payment elsewhere.
3. Whether a competing licensee could obtain an injunction against an alleged statutory violation without clear statutory authorization and without proof of specific, protectable injury in equity.

## Decision

- The Missouri Supreme Court reversed the decree granting the injunction.
- The court held the challenged method of taking telephone orders and delivering by messenger was not shown to be clearly forbidden by the Liquor Control Act when the order was accepted at the licensed premises.
- The court concluded Clark failed to establish an adequate equitable basis for competitor-sought injunctive relief on this record.

## Legal Principles

- A retail sale may be treated as completed at the seller’s place of business when an order is accepted there by telephone; later delivery and payment do not necessarily change the legal situs of the sale.
- Restrictive or penal liquor-control provisions are construed strictly; courts will not extend prohibitions by implication to business practices not clearly barred by statute.
- Private injunctive relief to restrain alleged regulatory violations generally requires clear statutory authorization or a showing of special, cognizable injury; enforcement of liquor laws is primarily for public authorities.

## Conclusion

The court set aside an injunction obtained by a competing tavern owner because the liquor statute did not clearly prohibit telephone-accepted sales with messenger delivery treated as occurring at the licensed premises, and the competitor did not show a sufficient equitable entitlement to police alleged violations through private injunction.


Clark v. Crown Drug Co., 348 Mo. 91, 152 S.W.2d 145 (Mo. 1941)