Crawley v. Seignious

• Decision Date: 07 February 1958
• Docket Number: No. 19949,19949
• Parties: W. L. CRAWLEY et al. v. Richard C. SEIGNIOUS.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

Page 38

102 S.E.2d 38

213 Ga. 810

W. L. CRAWLEY et al. v. Richard C. SEIGNIOUS.

No. 19949.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Feb. 7, 1958.

Eugene Cook, Atty. Gen., J. R. Parham, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frank S. Twitty, Sp. Deputy Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiffs in error.

Ben J. Camp, A. Tate Conyers, Atlanta, for defendant in error.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court

CANDLER, Justice.

By an act which was approved on February 17, 1956, the legislature created a board known as the State Board of Dispensing Opticians, vesting power in its five members, as therein provided, to enforce its provisions. Ga.L.1956, p. 148. The act defines a dispensing optician 'as one who prepares and dispenses lenses, spectacles, eye glasses and optical devices to the intended user thereof on the written prescription of a physician or optometrist, duly licensed to practice his profession.' Section 2. By section 3 of the act any person who desires to practice the trade of a dispensing optician must apply to the board for a license, possess the qualifications prescribed by the act, successfully pass an examination which the board is authorized to conduct, and pay a fee of $25 for his license. However, under section 8 any resident of Georgia who was practicing the trade of a dispensing optician when the act was approved is entitled to a license, without examination, on application therefor and on proof of such practice when his application and such proof is submitted to the board within six months after the approval date of the act and on payment of the required fee of $25. The act empowers the board to establish a code of ethics and standards of practice for dispensing opticians and to adopt such other rules and regulations governing procedure as may be necessary and proper to carry into effect the purposes of the act. Among others, the board adopted Rule 13 which reads: 'No individual, firm or corporation shall engage in the business of [a] dispensing optician who is engaged in the manufacture or wholesale distribution to dispensing opticians or optometrists of lenses, frames, optical supplies, optometric appliances or devices or kindred products.' On June 18, 1956, Richard c. Seignious filed with the board his verified application for a license to carry on his trade or occupation of a dispensing optician, using the form prescribed by the board for such purpose. It shows that he was born on February 18, 1918; that he is a resident of Georgia and has been since the date of his birth; that he is a self-employed dispensing optician and was such on February 17, 1956, with his place of business in the City of Atlanta; and that he has engaged in the trade or occupation of a dispensing optician continuously since 1949. The board denied his application and returned to him the $25 which he had deposited as a license fee on the ground that he was not engaged in the trade or occupation of a dispensing optician within the meaning of the act and the rules and regulations which it had adopted, but on the contrary was engaged in the business of a wholesale optical dispenser. Alleging the facts stated above, Seignious brought mandamus against the members of the board and prayed for a judgment compelling them to issue to him the license he had applied for. The defendants demurred to the petition and also...