Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140, § 2 (2026)

Issuance of license to be innholders or common victuallers; signing; refusal; fee; record; penalty

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 2. Licensing authorities may grant licenses to persons to be innholders or common victuallers. Such license shall not be issued or be valid until it has been signed by a majority of the aldermen in cities where the license is to be granted by the aldermen, by a majority of the licensing board in other cities or by the selectmen in towns. An alderman, any member of the licensing board or a selectman may refuse to sign a license for a person who, in his opinion, has not complied with this chapter. This section shall not require the licensing authorities to grant either of said licenses if, in their opinion, the public good does not require it. Unless otherwise established in a town by town meeting action and in a city by city council action, and in a town with no town meeting by town council action, by adoption of appropriate by-laws and ordinances to set such fees, a fee of not more than twenty-five dollars may be charged for either of said licenses, but in no event shall any such fee be greater than $100. The licenses shall be recorded in the office of the licensing authorities. An alderman, member of a licensing board or selectman who signs a license granted contrary to this chapter shall be punished by a fine of not more than fifty dollars.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1927–2024 · leading case: Mello v. License Comm'n of Revere, 435 Mass. 532 (Mass. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Mello v. License Comm'n of Revere, 435 Mass. 532 (Mass. 2001). · cites it 2× “Mello complained that the commission lacked the authority under G. L. c. 140, § 2, the common victualler statute, to place any restrictions on his common victualler’s license and, alternatively, that placing any restriction on his license was arbitrary and capricious.”

McDonald's Corp. v. Town of East Longmeadow, 506 N.E.2d 172 (Mass. App. Ct. 1987). · cites it 2× “3 McDonald’s claims that the board considered factors which are not connected with the preparation and delivery of food, see G. L. c. 140 §§ 2, 6, and that the reasons were not supported by evidence.”

Mosey Cafe, Inc. v. Licensing Bd. for the City of Boston, 154 N.E.2d 585 (Mass. 1958). “It has been licensed by the board as a common victualler under G. L. c. 140, § 2, and as a common victualler it has been further licensed by the board under G.”

McDonald's Corp. v. Bd. of Selectmen of Randolph, 399 N.E.2d 38 (Mass. App. Ct. 1980). “By its action in the nature of certiorari, McDonald’s Corporation (McDonald’s) challenged the denial by the Randolph board of selectmen (board) of a common victualler’s license (G. L. c. 140, § 2) for a proposed restaurant in a shopping center located in that town.”

Town of Natick v. Modern Cont'l Constr., 8 Mass. L. Rptr. 524 (Mass. Super. Ct. 1998). · cites it 2× “As to the town’s common victualler’s license claim under G.L.c. 140, §2 (Count I), the summary judgment motion of each side will be allowed in part and denied in part.”

Papa Gino's of Am., Inc. v. Taurasi, 616 F. Supp. 77 (D. Mass. 1984). “Mass.Gen.Laws ch. 140, § 2 provides that licensing authorities "may” grant licenses to persons to be common victuallers or innkeepers.”

Mosey Cafe, Inc. v. Mayor of Boston, 154 N.E.2d 591 (Mass. 1958). “The plaintiff, operator of the “Ball and Bat Cafe ” in Boston, is licensed by the licensing board for the city of Boston as a common victualler under G. L. c. 140, § 2, and as a common victualler has been further licensed by the board under G.”

Star Brewing Co. v. Flynn, 158 N.E. 891 (Mass. 1927). “The applications for licenses issued for each succeeding year from May 1,1918, to and including April 30, 1921, contained the statement made by Flynn under oath, that he was the sole legal owner of the business.”

Town of Wellesley ex rel. Bd. of Selectmen v. Javamine, Inc., 21 Mass. L. Rptr. 12 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2006). · cites it 2× “The Meaning of Common Victualler: Literal Analyis The crux of the Town’s position is that the new operation will constitute a “common victualler” within the meaning of G.L.c. 140, §2. In pertinent part that statute includes the following sentences.”

Connor v. Marriott Int'l, Inc. (Mass. App. Ct. 2024). “To the contrary, § 12B provides protection for innkeepers, who are required under the licensing provisions of G. L. c. 140, §§ 2, 5, and 6, "to be provided at all times with suitable food for strangers and travellers and .”

Cadle Co. v. Massachusetts Div. of Banks, 21 Mass. L. Rptr. 689 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2006). “1985) (applicant had no property interest in victualler’s license under G.L.c. 140, §2 where licensing statute provided that licensing authority “may” grant license in the public good).”

4765 Co.-IHOP Restaurant v. Town of Saugus, 7 Mass. L. Rptr. 87 (Mass. Super. Ct. 1997). “The Town issued a common victualer’s license to the plaintiff pursuant to G.L.c. 140, §2 with the condition that the hours of operation for this IHOP restaurant be restricted to 6:00 a.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.