Dantzler v. Callison
| Decision Date | 13 June 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 17016,17016 |
| Citation | 88 S.E.2d 64,227 S.C. 317 |
| Parties | Dr. M. S. DANTZLER et al., Appellants, v. T. C. CALLISON, Attorney General of S. C., Respondent. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Sam R. Watt, T. E. Walsh, Spartanburg, for appellants.
T. C. Callison, Atty. Gen., James S. Verner, Asst. Atty. Gen., M. L. Meadors, Florence, for respondent.
This is an action instituted by the plaintiffs-appellants, Naturopathic Physicians, individually, as officers of the South Carolina Naturopathic Physicians Association, and in behalf of all other Naturopathic Physicians licensed in the State of South Carolina, against the Attorney General of South Carolina, seeking a Declaratory Judgment construing and interpreting the statutes of this State relating to Naturopathic Physicians so as to confer upon them the right to prescribe and administer drugs of a botanical origin including opium and its derivatives.
The complaint alleges that Chapter 16 of the Code of Laws, 1952, § 56-901 et seq., sets forth the rights of Naturopathic Physicians practicing in this State; that pursuant to said statutes they have the right to prescribe and administer drugs of a botanical origin including opium and its derivatives, as well as to administer and prescribe aminopyrine, any barbiturates, and penicillin; and that they do now prescribe and administer vitamins, minerals, barbiturates and penicillin in the practice of their profession. The complaint further alleges that it is essential in the practice of their profession, as permitted by the laws of this State, to administer and prescribe such drugs; and that the training required of Naturopaths, both as prescribed by the laws of this State and by their profession, fully qualify Naturopaths to understand the beneficial use and the harmful effects of drugs of a botanical origin. It is further alleged that the respondent, Attorney General of South Carolina, has rendered an opinion holding that a duly licensed Naturopathic Physician cannot prescribe and administer opium and its derivatives in the course of their professional practice, and that as a result of said opinion Naturopaths are denied the right to fully practice all aspects of their profession as permitted by the laws of this State. The complaint seeks an interpretation and construction of the laws of this State so as to confer upon Naturopaths the right to prescribe and administer all drugs of a botanical origin, including opium and all of its derivatives.
The defendant interposed a demurrer to the complaint on the ground that the complaint failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action entitling the plaintiffs to the relief demanded by them, namely, that they are entitled to administer and prescribe drugs of a botanical origin including opium and its derivatives in their practice as Naturopaths, on the ground that the applicable statutes of this State prohibit the plaintiffs from administering and prescribing such drugs. The Circuit Court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the complaint, holding 'that Naturopaths are not allowed to use narcotics, barbiturates and the other drugs contended for by them in the complaint.' From such order this appeal is prosecuted.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Collet v. Scopel
...* * to administer and prescribe such drugs' as opium and its derivatives, aminopyrine, barbiturates and penicillin [Dantzler v. Callison, 1955, 227 S.C. 317, 88 S.E.2d 64, 66], and licensed naturopaths in Florida stubbornly and successfully sought the right to prescribe narcotic drugs. Stat......
-
Dantzler v. Callison
...'drink deep or touch not'. We of course must assume that it knew of the decisions of this Court involving Naturopathy in Dantzler v. Callison, 227 S.C. 317, 88 S.E.2d 64; Jacoby v. South Carolina State Board, 219 S.C. 66, 64 S.E.2d 138; and Williams v. Capital Life, supra. However, the righ......
-
Gottula v. Standard Reliance Ins. Co., 34133
...be used to test the sufficiency of the complaint if it is vulnerable on any of the statutory grounds of demurrer.' In Dantzler v. Callison, 227 S.C. 317, 88 S.E.2d 64, 67, the court held: 'The use and determination of the demurrer in actions arising under Declaratory Judgment Act is control......
-
Midland Guardian Co. v. Thacker, 0097
...on the mobile home. Before any action can be maintained, of course, there must exist a "justiciable controversy." Dantzler v. Callison, 227 S.C. 317, 88 S.E.2d 64, 65 (1955). A justiciable controversy is a real and substantial controversy which is appropriate for judicial determination, as ......