Scheeline

The appeal is from a judgment for $1,023.25 and costs.

The following statement made by appellants is not disputed and seems to be substantially accurate: Respondents are a wholesale liquor firm engaged in the business of selling intoxicating liquors; they made certain sales of such liquors to. appellants to be used by the latter in conducting a saloon in Plumas County. When the orders were placed with respondents for the delivery of the liquors, there was an ordinance in said county prohibiting any person from engaging in the saloon business without a license, and no person could obtain a license who was not a citizen of the United States. Appellant A. Pezzola was not such citizen. The facts were known to respondents. Respondent Edwin S. Scheeline had an understanding with appellant S. A. Pezzola, whereby the latter was to make application to the board of supervisors of said county for a liquor license in his own name and conduct the business for appellant A. Pezzola, and it was understood that in case said license was issued the liquor was to be supplied to A. Pezzola or to both appellants. S. A. Pezzola made the application, the license was issued to him, and thereafter…