Lipman v. Forman.

• Decision Date: 21 October 1946
• Docket Number: 147/219.
• Citation: 49 A.2d 236
• Parties: LIPMAN et al. v. FORMAN.
• Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery

49 A.2d 236

LIPMAN et al.

v.FORMAN.

147/219.

Court of Chancery of New Jersey.

Oct. 21, 1946.

Suit by Arthur H. Lipman, and others, against Max Forman for an injunction restraining defendant from practicing dentistry without a license. On defendant's motion to strike bill of complaint.

Motion granted.

Syllabus by the Court.

The statute regulating the practice of dentistry was enacted for the purpose of protecting the public from incompetent practitioners and not for the purpose of restricting competition by those unlicensed as against those licensed under the statute.

The statute confers no such property right in one licensed thereunder as will entitle him to maintain a suit for injunction against one alleged to be practicing dentistry illegally.

Edward Stover, of Hoboken, for complainants.

James F. McGovern, Jr., of Jersey City, for defendant.

FIELDER, Vice Chancellor.

The bill of complaint herein was filed by two licensed dentists and an unincorporated association of several licensed dentists. It alleges that defendant is practicing dentistry without having been licensed and admitted to practice that profession in this state. Complainants seek an injunction restraining defendant from continuing such practice. The defendant moves to strike the bill on the ground that it discloses no equitable cause of action and that this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain complainants' suit.

R.S. 45:6-1 et seq., N.J.S.A., regulates the practice of dentistry. It provides that no person shall practice that profession in this state unless licensed to do so by a state board of registration and examination; it provides a money penalty for violation of the statute to be recovered in an action in a district court or court of common pleas on complaint by any member of the state board or by any member of an incorporated dental society. It provides for no other method of procedure against one charged with unlicensed practice of dentistry.

The question argued on the motion to strike is whether this suit may be maintained by individuals licensed to practice dentistry in this state, who allege that a license to practice dentistry, obtained after compliance with the statute, is a property right the value of which is greatly diminished by unfair and illegal competition by defendant and results in loss of business and fees to complainants.

Complainants place great reliance on Unger v. Landlords' Management Corporation, 114 N.J.Eq. 68, 168 A. 229, wherein this court held that the right to practice law in this state is in the nature of an exclusive franchise in those persons regularly licensed; that it is a property right which may be protected by injunction against one not entitled to exercise the franchise. The court said that the right to practice law is conferred by letters patent issued under the great seal of state by its chief executive and is a franchise granted by the same authority as was formerly exercised by the British crown. Whatever may be said about the profession of the law whose members are...