Dean v. State ex rel. Board of Medical Registration & Examination
| Decision Date | 06 January 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 29067,29067 |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | DEAN v. STATE ex rel. BOARD OF MEDICAL REGISTRATION & EXAMINATION. |
Christian, Waltz & Klotz, Noblesville, James D. Harrison, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Edwin K. Steers, Atty. Gen., Thomas L. Webber, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant was enjoined from practicing medicine in Indiana without a license under Acts of 1927, ch. 248, § 1, p. 725, being § 63-1311, Burns' 1951 Replacement.
The complaint for injunction alleged that the defendant (appellant) engaged in the practice of medicine in Marion County on July 26, 1950 and on November 15, 1950, without a license so to do.
Appellant's request for a jury trial was denied. There was a special finding of facts showing that defendant (appellant) practiced chironpractic on July 26, 1950 at an office maintained and equipped for that purpose at 815 North Meridian Street, in the city of Indianapolis, Marion County, Indiana.
Most of the questions presented by the assignment of errors have been decided by this court adversely to appellant, and we are asked to overrule these former decisions.
The alleged errors relied upon by appellant are:
1. The trial court erred in each of its conclusions of law.
2. The court erred in overruling appellant's motion for a new trial.
3. The court erred in overruling appellant's request for a trial by jury.
We shall consider these in the order named.
(1) Several reasons are advanced to support appellant's contention that the court erred in its conclusions of law: First: The conclusions of law here pertinent were stated by the trial court as follows
* * *
* * *
Appellant bases his argument addressed to these conclusions of law upon the false presumption that ch. 169 of the Acts of 1897, to which ch. 248 of the Acts of 1927 is an amendment, is a criminal statute.
The subject of the act, ch. 169, Acts 1897, is expressed in the title as: 'AN ACT regulating the practice of medicine, surgery and obstetrics, * * * ' and its purpose is to regulate the practice of medicine. The purpose of a criminal statute is to prevent and punish the commission of crimes.
It may reasonably be supposed that by the enactment of the Medical Practice Act it was the deliberate purpose and intention of the legislature to protect people afficted with diseases or illness in any degree from their own credulity. Crum v. State Board of Medical Registration, etc., 1941, 219 Ind. 191, 198, 37 N.E.2d 65. Such a purpose can hardly be said to have as its fulfillment the prevention of crime. Section 9 of the Acts of 1897, ch. 169, p. 255, being § 63-1315, Burns' 1951 Replacement, defining certain violations as misdemeanors and fixing penalty therefor is but an aid to the enforcement of the primary purpose of the act.
The Medical Practice Act is clearly not a criminal statute and the rules pertaining to criminal statutes which appellant here asserts have no application to the case at bar.
Second: Appellant asserts that the 1927 act is invalid because the title does not refer to the injunctive remedy which was added by this amendment.
In State ex rel. Indiana State Board of Medical Registration and Examination v. Cole, 1939, 215 Ind. 562, 20 N.E.2d 972, it was asserted by appellee that the title of the 1927 act was not broad enough to cover the provisions authorizing the Attorney General and prosecuting attorneys to maintain actions for injunction and, at page 566 of 215 Ind., at page 974 of 20 N.E.2d, this court said:
Nothing has been advanced by appellant in the instant case to cause us to modify or overrule this holding.
Third: There is no merit to appellant's contention that the 1927 act embraces more than one subject.
Fourth: It is asserted that the complaint is insufficient in that it fails to allege that the defendant 'intended to or likely would in the future practice medicine without a license * * *.', or that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable injury and damages unless defendant was enjoined. This question has been decided adversely to appellant.
In State ex rel. Bowers v. Moser, 1944, 222 Ind. 354, at pages 358, 359, 53 N.E.2d 893, at page 894, we said:
'The appellee refers us to that provision of the statute in question which states that an action such as this may be maintained in accordance with the law of the State of Indiana governing injunctions, and insists that this provision of the statute required the appellant to allege and prove threatened or anticipated acts on the part of the appellee; and that from such acts the State of Indiana will suffer great and irreparable damages and injuries. With this contention we cannot agree. The same section of the statute also provides that in a complaint for injunction under said statute it shall be sufficient to charge that the appellee did upon a certain day and in a certain county engage in the practice of medicine without a license, 'without averring any further or more particular facts concerning the same.' This clearly indicates that it was not the intention of the Legislature to require the plaintiff in such an action to either allege or prove threatened continuance of the illegal practice or irreparable damage to the State. The reasons for the Legislature's despensing with these two requirements would seem to be obvious. It could be assumed that the person who was willing to violate the statute by engaging in the practice of medicine without a license would continue to do so unless enjoined. By prohibiting the practice of medicine without a license the Legislature recognized the danger involved in such practice and in effect found that such practice would be injurious to the health and welfare of the people of the State. By providing for an action for an injunction in such a case the Legislature recognized the necessity of providing a method for promptly stopping such illegal practice whenever such practice is discovered.
'The allegations in the amended complaint that the appellee had threatened and would continue such illegal practice and that the state would suffer great and irreparable damage and injury were unnecessary to the complaint and it was unnecessary to prove these allegations.'
We concur in, and reaffirm, the holding in this case.
Fifth: There is also no merit to appellant's contention that equity will not lie in this case because the state had an adequate remedy at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Midwest Sec. Life Ins. Co. v. Stroup
...both recent and ancient. See, e.g., Fager v. Hundt, 610 N.E.2d 246, 253 n. 9 (Ind.1993); Dean v. State ex rel. Bd. of Med. Registration & Examination, 233 Ind. 25, 31-32, 116 N.E.2d 503, 507 (1954); Fish v. Prudential Ins. Co., 225 Ind. 448, 452-53, 75 N.E.2d 57, 59 (1947); Martin v. Martin......
-
McIntosh v. Melroe Co.
...Zoning Appeals v. La Dow, 238 Ind. 673, 676-78, 153 N.E.2d 599, 601 (1958). The second, Dean v. State ex rel. Board of Medical Registration & Examination, 233 Ind. 25, 30-31, 116 N.E.2d 503, 506 (1954), dealt with a claim that legislative regulation of the medical profession was "unconstitu......
-
State ex rel. Collet v. Scopel
...Medical Examiners, supra; State ex rel. Board of Medical Registration & Examination v. Hayes, 228 Ind. 286, 91 N.E.2d 913; Dean v. State, 233 Ind. 25, 116 N.E.2d 503; Nighohossian v. State, 75 Ariz. 162, 253 P.2d 344, 346; State v. Fray, 214 Iowa 53, 241 N.W. 663, 81 A.L.R. 286; State v. Ho......
-
White v. State
...as interchangeable. Board of Zoning Appeals v. La Dow (1958), 238 Ind. 673, 153 N.E.2d 599; Dean v. State ex rel. Bd. of Med. Registration (1954), 233 Ind. 25, 116 N.E.2d 503; Paul v. Walkerton Woodlawn Cemetery Assn. (1933), 204 Ind. 693, 184 N.E. 537.5 Dotsie Austin had been charged with ......