Gilchrist v. Bierring
| Decision Date | 06 June 1944 |
| Docket Number | 46433. |
| Citation | 14 N.W.2d 724,234 Iowa 899 |
| Parties | GILCHRIST v. BIERRING et al. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
John M. Rankin, Atty. Gen., of Iowa, and Edward S White, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., and Maher & Mullen, Sp Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellants.
Paul E. McCarville and Edward Breen, both of Fort Dodge, for appellee.
On October 31, 1935, plaintiff was issued a license to operate the Ft Dodge Beauty Academy, a school of cosmetology at Ft. Dodge Iowa, and such license was renewed from year to year until October 16, 1942, when the board of cosmetology examiners refused to approve plaintiff's application for a renewal of the license then about to expire on October 31, 1942. The resolution of the board recited: Pursuant to the licenses previously issued to him, plaintiff had invested several thousand dollars for equipment and school facilities. Before the board acted upon his application, he received no notice or intimation that it would be denied and he had no opportunity to be heard thereon. This action was commenced October 31, 1942.
Plaintiff's petition asserts: he is operating his school in Ft. Dodge; he has complied with all laws of this state and all rules and regulations lawfully adopted by the department of health and the board of cosmetology examiners and has observed all such requirements as to location, equipment, sanitation, curriculum, method and manner of instruction and character and qualifications of instructors; on October 20, 1942, he was advised that the license for his school would not be renewed; prior to such date he had no opportunity to be heard in support of his application and no hearing of any kind was conducted thereon; the action of defendants is unwarranted in law, and is beyond their jurisdiction; the refusal to renew plaintiff's license is arbitrary and unreasonable, intended to destroy plaintiff's business and, in legal effect, is a confiscation of property in violation of his constitutional rights, without due process of law; in violation of plaintiff's constitutional rights, defendants refused to afford plaintiff an opportunity to be heard in support of his application; plaintiff tendered the annual fee and his tender was rejected; unless restrained, defendants will prevent plaintiff from operating his school, will confiscate his property and he will suffer irreparable injury; plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law; defendant Bierring is acting without power, authority or jurisdiction to prescribe any rule or regulation in connection with the operation of schools of cosmetology, other than sanitary rules and regulations; it is beyond the power and jurisdiction of defendants to suspend, revoke or refuse to renew plaintiff's license and the purported action of defendants, in the absence of a hearing and without an opportunity to be heard, unless restrained, will wrongfully deprive plaintiff of his liberty and property. Count I of the petition prayed for a writ of injunction; Count II for a writ of mandamus. A temporary injunction was issued.
Defendants' answer admitted various allegations of the petition and denied others. Defendants admit that on Oct. 16, 1942, they notified plaintiff that his school license was not approved for renewal for the reasons above quoted. They assert: plaintiff's school had been operated in violation of the laws and rules therein referred to; plaintiff had been requested at various times to observe and follow such rules but failed, neglected and refused to do so and such failure, neglect and refusal, in the opinion of defendants, would continue were plaintiff permitted to operate his school; on Oct. 27, 1942, plaintiff was advised of the grounds for refusal to renew his license; in so refusing, defendants exercised good faith and discretion vested in them by law which cannot be directed by the court. The prayer was that the action be dismissed.
An extensive trial was had. The record of the testimony comprises over 100 pages of the abstract. There were also many exhibits. The court found it to be unnecessary to its decision of the case to review the evidence or to make any findings of fact. Its decision was based upon consideration of constitutional questions alone. The court determined that, in the delegation of legislative power to an administrative body, it is necessary for the legislature to establish a definite policy and to fix standards within which the administrative body can exercise its delegated power; that in the statutes, authorizing the board of cosmetology examiners to approve or disapprove a license for a school of cosmetology, there is an entire absence of any declaration, either of policy or standards; the board has no legislative limits within which it should function, no standards to guide its conduct; such a situation is not merely a delegation of legislative power, but abdication, and this the legislature cannot do; the rules promulgated by the board are without legal force or effect and may not be enforced; since plaintiff has made a substantial investment in his school, defendants' refusal to renew his license, without notice or hearing, violates due process of law. Accordingly, defendants were enjoined from exercising any jurisdiction with respect to the approval or disapproval of the plaintiff's school or from interfering with its operation as by law provided, upon payment of the annual license fee, and defendant Bierring and his successors in office were ordered to renew plaintiff's license annually upon payment of the annual fee. Defendants appeal to this court.
I. Before considering the specific statute which the trial court determined was inadequate to meet constitutional requirements, we will briefly review two chapters of the Code, which form the background of statutory law applicable to the specific section which is directly involved herein.
Title VIII of the Code 1939 [1] pertains to the practice of certain professions affecting the public health. Chapter 115 therein [2] gives jurisdiction to the state department of health over the professions of medicine and surgery, podiatry, osteopathy, chiropractic, dentistry, dental hygiene, optometry, cosmetology, barbering and embalming. No person can practice any of these professions unless he shall obtain a license from the department, [3] a man must be 21 years of age, but a woman may practice cosmetology if 18 years old. [4] The department may refuse to grant a license upon any of the grounds for its revocation. [5] Licenses must be displayed by all practitioners, [6] shall expire June 30th of each year and shall be renewed annually without examination upon payment of the annual fee. [7] One who has permitted his license to lapse may be reinstated without examination upon recommendation of the examining board and payment of renewal fees. [8] Examining boards are appointed by the governor for each profession. [9] Membership on such boards is limited to members of the particular profession [10] who are actively engaged therein. [11] Specific provisions are made for examination of applicants for practice in each profession. [12] Each examining board is authorized to make rules for its examinations. [13] Ten grounds for revocation of a license are specified. [14] The district court is given jurisdiction of the proceeding to revoke or suspend a license. [15] The attorney general or county attorney prosecutes the action on behalf of the state or county. [16] Ten days' notice must be given the licensee. [17] The proceeding is summary in its nature, triable in equity, [18] with both parties accorded a right of appeal. [19]
Chapter 124.2 applies exclusively to cosmetology. Membership in the profession is defined, [20] and specific qualifications are fixed, [21] including an examination by the board, which can be given only to graduates of schools of cosmetology, approved by the board and licensed by the department. [22] The department is authorized to prescribe sanitary rules for shops and schools as it may deem necessary, with particular reference to the precautions necessary to prevent the creating and spreading of infectious and contagious diseases. [23] Managers of shops who supervise operators must be licensed. [24] No person, firm or corporation shall employ operators who are not licensed. [25] All fees paid to the department by practitioners are kept in a separate fund by the treasurer of state [26] and the cost of administering the law is limited by the amount in the fund. [27]
With the foregoing as a background, let us consider the specific section which is directly involved herein. It is Section 2585.18, which provides as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gilchrist v. Bierring
...234 Iowa 89914 N.W.2d 724GILCHRISTv.BIERRING et al.No. 46433.Supreme Court of Iowa.June 6, Appeal from District Court, Webster County; Dean W. Peisen, Judge. Action in equity. Count I of the petition sought to enjoin defendants from revoking plaintiff's license to operate a school of cosmet......