City of Cherokee v. Perkins

• Decision Date: 30 October 1902
• Citation: 118 Iowa 405,92 N.W. 68
• Parties: CITY OF CHEROKEE v. PERKINS.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

118 Iowa 405

92 N.W. 68

CITY OF CHEROKEE

v.PERKINS.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Oct. 30, 1902.

Appeal from district court, Cherokee county; F. R. Gaynor, Judge.

The appellee is a practitioner of dental surgery, and resides in the city of Des Moines, Polk county, where he maintains an office for the practice of his profession. It appears that he is a regularly licensed practitioner, as provided for by the statute of this state relating to that subject, and that his license was of record in both Polk and Cherokee counties, in which latter county the appellant city is situated. It further appears that at stated times appellee was accustomed to visit other towns in the state, advertising and holding himself out as a practitioner of dental surgery, and that at such places he engaged a room in a hotel, and therein practiced his profession. In March, 1900, he made one of his professional visits to the appellant city; and on that occasion an information was filed against him in mayor's court, charging a violation of an ordinance of said city, in that therein he held himself out as a dental surgeon, and practiced his profession, without procuring a license therefor as provided in such ordinance. The material provisions of the ordinance are as follows: “Be it ordained * * * that it shall be unlawful for any itinerant physician and surgeon, or doctor of dental surgery, to practice his profession within the city * * * unless he shall first have obtained a license * * * from the mayor. Every physician practicing medicine, surgery, or dental surgery, * * * who goes from place to place * * * or, by circulars or advertisements, solicits persons to meet him for professional treatment at places other than his office at the place of his residence, shall be considered an itinerant doctor, * * * or itinerant dental surgeon. Any person violating the provisions of this ordinance, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined,” etc. A plea of not guilty was entered, and upon trial the defendant was adjudged guilty, and a fine imposed, from which judgment an appeal was taken to the district court. In the latter court the judgment of the mayor's court was reversed, and a judgment entered discharging the defendant. From this judgment the city appeals. Affirmed.William Mulvaney, for appellant.

Claud M. Smith and Spurrier, Forbes & Mills, for appellee.

BISHOP, J.

The district court proceeded upon the theory that the appellant city had no power to include doctors of dental...