Hardin v. Foglesong, No. 8435.

CourtSupreme Court of West Virginia
Writing for the CourtLITZ
Citation186 S.E. 308
PartiesHARDIN. v. FOGLESONG et al.
Docket NumberNo. 8435.
Decision Date09 June 1936

186 S.E. 308

HARDIN.
v.
FOGLESONG et al.

No. 8435.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

June 9, 1936.


Syllabus by the Court.

1. Mandamus will not be denied on the ground that there is another remedy, unless such other remedy is equally convenient, beneficial, and effective.

2. Statutes restricting the exercise of any trade or occupation must be strictly construed.

Original petition for mandamus by S. H. Hardin against H. E. Foglesong and others, as members of and constituting the Board

[186 S.E. 309]

of Embalmers and Funeral Directors of West Virginia, wherein defendants filed a demurrer.

Writ awarded.

Rummel, Blagg & Stone and E. M. Bur-dette, all of Charleston, for relator.

Steptoe & Johnson, Chesney M, Carney and George W. McQuain, all of Charleston, for respondents.

LITZ, Judge.

Petitioner, S. H. Hardin, seeks, by writ of mandamus, to compel respondents, H. E. Foglesong, James P. Altmeyer, Newell J. Hayman, Earl B. Thrush, C. A. Ruttencut-ter, and E. H. Shanklin, as members of and constituting the board of embalmers and funeral directors of West Virginia, to issue to him a license as funeral director for a place of business in the city of Montgomery, Fayette county, W. Va.

The West Virginia board of embalmers and funeral directors was created by chapter 49, Acts (First Extraordinary Session) 1933. The statute provides that any person desiring to engage in the profession or business of funeral directing shall, upon application for license, be required to show such preliminary requisites and take such examinations as shall be deemed necessary by the board in its rules and regulations. Section 10 of the act requires the board to issue a license to any person who at the time of its passage was actively engaged in the profession or business of funeral directing and who, within 60 days thereafter, has registered as such funeral director with the board and paid a fee of $50. In section 6, it is provided that: "Any funeral director who has more than one place of business within the state, or the owner or operator of any establishment in which the business or profession of funeral directing is conducted, shall be required to obtain a license as funeral director for each such establishment." Section 7 authorizes appeals to the circuit court from the rulings of the board, refusing, revoking, or suspending licenses. Petitioner was, at the time of the passage of the act, engaged in the business and profession of funeral directing in the city of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 practice notes
  • DePond v. Gainer, No. 16902
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • March 12, 1986
    ...another remedy unless such other remedy is equally convenient, beneficial, and effective." Syl. pt. 5, Hardin v. Foglesong, 117 W.Va. 544, 186 S.E. 308 (1936); see also West Virginia Citizens Action Group v. Daley, 324 S.E.2d 713, 716 (W.Va.1984); Allen v. Human Rights Commission, 324 S.E.2......
  • State ex rel. Vance v. Arthur, No. 10887
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • May 28, 1957
    ...State ex rel. Miller v. Board of Education of Mason County, 126 W.Va. 248, 27 S.E.2d 599; Hardin v. Foglesong, Page 426 117 W.Va. 544, 186 S.E. 308. The tendency in this jurisdiction is to enlarge and advance the scope of the remedy of mandamus, rather than to restrict and limit it, in orde......
  • State ex rel. Cline v. Hatfield, No. 12069
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • September 20, 1960
    ...is another remedy unless such remedy is equally beneficial, convenient and effective.' Pt. 1, Syl., Hardin v. Foglesong, 117 W.Va. 544, 186 S.E. 308.' Point 1, Syllabus, State ex rel. Miller v. Board of Education of the County of Mason, 126 W.Va. 248, 27 S.E.2d 599, In Carter v. City of Blu......
  • Carter v. City Of Bluefield, No. 10142.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • June 14, 1949
    ...available. State ex rel. Miller v. Board of Education of Mason County, 126 W.Va. 248, 27 S.E.2d 599; Hardin v. Foglesong, 117 W.Va. 544, 186 S.E. 308. The tendency in this jurisdiction is to enlarge and advance the scope of the remedy of mandamus, rather than to restrict and limit it, in or......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
22 cases
  • DePond v. Gainer, No. 16902
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • March 12, 1986
    ...another remedy unless such other remedy is equally convenient, beneficial, and effective." Syl. pt. 5, Hardin v. Foglesong, 117 W.Va. 544, 186 S.E. 308 (1936); see also West Virginia Citizens Action Group v. Daley, 324 S.E.2d 713, 716 (W.Va.1984); Allen v. Human Rights Commission, 324 S.E.2......
  • State ex rel. Vance v. Arthur, No. 10887
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • May 28, 1957
    ...State ex rel. Miller v. Board of Education of Mason County, 126 W.Va. 248, 27 S.E.2d 599; Hardin v. Foglesong, Page 426 117 W.Va. 544, 186 S.E. 308. The tendency in this jurisdiction is to enlarge and advance the scope of the remedy of mandamus, rather than to restrict and limit it, in orde......
  • State ex rel. Cline v. Hatfield, No. 12069
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • September 20, 1960
    ...is another remedy unless such remedy is equally beneficial, convenient and effective.' Pt. 1, Syl., Hardin v. Foglesong, 117 W.Va. 544, 186 S.E. 308.' Point 1, Syllabus, State ex rel. Miller v. Board of Education of the County of Mason, 126 W.Va. 248, 27 S.E.2d 599, In Carter v. City of Blu......
  • Carter v. City Of Bluefield, No. 10142.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • June 14, 1949
    ...available. State ex rel. Miller v. Board of Education of Mason County, 126 W.Va. 248, 27 S.E.2d 599; Hardin v. Foglesong, 117 W.Va. 544, 186 S.E. 308. The tendency in this jurisdiction is to enlarge and advance the scope of the remedy of mandamus, rather than to restrict and limit it, in or......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT