Brown v. State

• Decision Date: 27 June 1910
• Citation: 109 P. 802,59 Wash. 195
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: BROWN v. STATE.

109 P. 802

59 Wash. 195

BROWN v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Washington

June 27, 1910

Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, Thurston County; John R Mitchell, Judge.

Action by Edwin J. Brown against the State to restrain the enforcement of a judgment convicting plaintiff of a violation of Rem. & Bal. Code, § 8421, requiring a license for the practice of dentistry. From a judgment dismissing the action plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

John R Parker, for appellant.

W. P Bell, Atty. Gen., and W. V. Tanner, W. F. Magill, and Geo. A. Lee, for the State.

RUDKIN C.J.

The plaintiff in this action was convicted before the superior court of King county of the crime of practicing dentistry without a license, in contravention of section 8421, Rem. & Bal. Code, and the judgment of conviction was affirmed by this court on appeal. State v. Brown, 37 Wash. 106, 79 P. 635, 68 L. R. A. 889, 107 Am. St. Rep. 798. The present action was instituted against the state in the superior court of Thurston county to review and reverse the last-mentioned judgment, and to restrain the state from the enforcement thereof. A demurrer to the complaint was sustained in the court below, and from a judgment dismissing the action this appeal is prosecuted.

The question presented by the appeal is thus stated in the appellant's brief: 'The only question before the honorable court raised by this record is the constitutionality of the act under which the appellant was prosecuted. Our contention is that it is unconstitutional for two reasons: First, by its terms and in substance it is in conflict with the Constitution; second, it is unconstitutional by reason of its maladministration by state authority.'

The question thus presented is a familiar one in this court as a reference to the following cases will show: State ex rel. Smith v. Board of Dental Examiners, 31 Wash. 492, 72 P. 110; In re Thompson, 36 Wash. 377, 78 P. 899; State v. Brown, supra; State v. Sexton, 37 Wash. 110, 79 P. 634; State v. Littooy, 37 Wash. 693, 79 P. 1135; State v. Littooy, 52 Wash. 87, 100 P. 170.

But aside from the fact that the question suggested by the record is no longer an open one in this state, there is another all controlling reason why the judgment must be affirmed. A court of equity has no jurisdiction to review or vacate the judgment of a criminal court, or to restrain the execution of a criminal sentence. In this conclusion all the authorities state and federal, English and American, agree. High on Injunctions (4th Ed.) § 157; 2 Story's Equity (13th Ed.) § 893; Freeman on Judgments (4th Ed.) § 484a; 22 Cyc. 903; Ex parte Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200, 8 S.Ct. 482, 31 L.Ed. 402; Fitts v. McGhee, 172 U.S. 516, 19 S.Ct. 269, 43 L.Ed. 535; Harkrader v. Wadley, 172 U.S. 148, 19 S.Ct. 119, 43 L.Ed. 399; Suess v. Noble (C. C.) 31 F. 855; Stuart v. Board...