
    CHARLESTON.
    Echols v. County Court.
    Submitted August 9, 1910.
    
      Decided August 10, 1910.
    1. Mandamus — Right to Remedy — Existence of Legal Duty.
    
    Under the charter of the city of Bluefield (Acts 1909, chapter 1) the county court of Mercer county has no jurisdiction oyer the subject of license to sell spirituous liquors in' that city, or within two miles of its limits. Therefore, after such license has been granted by the hoard of affairs of said city a mandamus does not lie to compel the county court to issue a certificate of the grant of license.
    
      Mandamus by E. E. L. Eohols against the County Court of Mercer County and others.
    
      Writ Refused.
    
    
      Sanders & Croclcett for petitioner.
    
      Hugh G. Woods, D. M. Easley, and James F. Brown, for respondents.
    
      
      Opinion filed October 25, 1910.
    
   BeaNNON, Judge :

Echols, the petitioner in this case, after obtaining a grant of license to sell liquor in the city of Bluefield from its board of affairs, applied to the county court of Mercer county to issue a certificate to obtain such license, but the court refused to order the certificate. Echols asks from the Court a mandamus to compel the county court to order such certificate to him. We refuse to award such mandamus, because as will be seen from the ease of Kelley & Moyers v. Bowman, Clerk, decided this day, we held that the grant of license by the board of affairs is final, without any right or duty in or on the county court, and that the county court has no jurisdiction in the matter, but that the duty of issuing the certificate rests on the clerk of the county court by virtue of the action of the board of affairs.

Mandamus Refused.

. EobiNSON, PRESIDENT, and WILLIAMS, Judge,

concur in the refusal of the mandamus, but do not concur in the syllabus and opinion above.  