Doller v. Reid

• Decision Date: 26 October 1948
• Citation: 308 Ky. 348,214 S.W.2d 584
• Parties: DOLLER et al. v. REID.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

214 S.W.2d 584

308 Ky. 348

DOLLER et al. v. REID.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

October 26, 1948

Appeal from Circuit Court, Boyle County; Colvin P. Rouse, Special Judge.

Suit by M. H. Doller and others against S. C. Reid for an injunction against defendant's practice of veterinary medicine surgery, and dentistry without a license and a declaration of rights as between plaintiffs and defendant. From a judgment of dismissal, plaintiffs appeal.

Affirmed.

C. E Rankin, of Harrodsburg, for appellants.

Smith &amp Leary, of Frankfort, and E. C. Newlin, of Danville, for appellee.

KNIGHT Justice.

Statement of the Case.

This suit was brought as a class suit by appellants, five duly licensed and active practitioners of veterinary medicine surgery and dentistry, to enjoin appellee from practicing that profession without a license which, it was alleged in the petition, he did not have. By amended petition they ask for a declaration of rights as between appellants and appellee. To this petition and amended petition appellee filed a special demurrer which raised the question of the right of appellants to bring or maintain this action. A general demurrer was also filed but before this was passed on the General Assembly of Kentucky at its regular 1948 session had enacted Senate Bill No. 173, c. 181, regulating the veterinary profession, and appellee had been issued a license to practice his profession under its provisions. Shortly thereafter appellee filed a motion to dismiss the suit because it had become a moot case with the issuance of a license to appellee under the terms of the act referred to. Appellants then filed their amended petition No. 2 alleging the act in question was unconstitutional and void and that therefore no legal license could have been issued to appellee under its provisions. By agreement of the parties the demurrer which had been filed to the petition was carried to the petition as amended. The lower court then sustained the demurrer to the petition and amended petitions and appellee declining to plead further the petition and amended petitions were desmissed. From the judgment dismissing the petitions appellants prosecute this appeal.

The Questions Involved.

On this appeal two questions have been raised and ably briefed: (1) Did appellants have such property right in the practice of their profession as to enable them to bring this suit for injunction or is the right to bring such action limited to the public authority charged with the enforcement of the law against the practice of veterinary medicine without a license; (2) is Senate Bill No. 173, now Chapter 321, K.R.S.1948 edition, unconstitutional?

I.

We think it is not necessary for us to decide the first question in view of our decision on the second one because if the act under which appellee has now been issued a license is constitutional and the Kentucky Board of Veterinary Examiners which issued him the license had the authority to do so, the right of appellants to bring the action becomes immaterial and the question a moot one.

II.

There is no contention on the part of appellants that the act in question, now Chapter 321, K.R.S., 1948 edition, which was passed at the instance of the veterinary profession, is unconstitutional as a whole. The act, which is titled An Act to regulate the practice of veterinary medicine, surgery, and dentistry in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, is a well drawn and comprehensive one regulating the admission of applicants to the practice of that profession after examination and the issuance of a license by the Board of Examiners created under the act, and the practice of the profession after such admission. The only section of the act under attack and complained of by appellants is K.R.S. 321.210(2) which reads as follows:

'Any person who had been a practitioner of veterinary medicine, surgery or dentistry in this Commonwealth for a period of one (1) year next prior to March 24, 1916, upon application to the Board and the payment to the Board of a fee of twenty-five ($25.00) dollars, shall be entitled to a license, and said Board shall issue to such applicant a license on the standard form used and approved by the Board, signed by its Chairman and Secretary-Treasurer and attested by its seal, which license he shall have recorded in the office of the county court clerk of the county in which he resides, as provided in K.R.S. 321.290. No License shall be issued under the provisions of this subsection after the 30th day of June, 1948, except as to applications filed with the Board prior to said date.

Appellants contend that the inclusion of this section, which was inserted in the act as an amendment after its introduction violates the requirements of Section 51 of the Constitution because the subject matter embraced in the section is not expressed in the title of the act, hereinabove set out. We think there is no merit in this contention. The title of the act clearly shows that it regulates the entire question of the practice of veterinary medicine, surgery and dentistry. Certainly the qualifications of those who were to practice that profession and the condition under which they were to be allowed to do so is covered by the general title to this act. The purpose of a title to a legislative act is to give notice to all concerned of the matters treated in the act so that no matters foreign to the purposes of the legislation be incorporated therein. We think the section above...