Maryland State Funeral Directors' Ass'n v. Mears

• Decision Date: 07 April 1926
• Docket Number: 15.
• Citation: 133 A. 62,150 Md. 294
• Parties: MARYLAND STATE FUNERAL DIRECTORS' ASS'N ET AL. v. MEARS ET AL.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

133 A. 62

150 Md. 294

MARYLAND STATE FUNERAL DIRECTORS' ASS'N ET AL. v. MEARS ET AL.

No. 15.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

April 7, 1926

Appeal from Superior Court of Baltimore City; Eli Frank, Judge.

"To be officially reported."

Mandamus by the Maryland State Funeral Directors' Association and another against Henry W. Mears and others, constituting State Board of Undertakers, and another. From an order dismissing the petition, petitioners appeal. Affirmed.

Argued before BOND, C.J., and PATTISON, URNER, ADKINS, OFFUTT DIGGES, and PARKE, JJ.

Vernon Cook, of Baltimore (William Edgar Byrd, of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellants.

Willis R. Jones, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Paul M. Higinbothom, of Baltimore (Thomas H. Robinson, Atty. Gen., on the brief), for appellees.

BOND C.J.

The appellants here appeal from the dismissal of their petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the state board of undertakers to revoke licenses issued to John W. Ritz to engage in undertaking and embalming, on the ground that Ritz lacked the qualifications required by law for such licenses. By the Act of 1924, c. 575, now sections 296 to 301 of article 43 of the Code of Public General Laws, persons who were at the time of the passage of the act carrying on the business of undertaking and the profession of embalming were required to take out licenses, one each year for undertaking and one permanent license for embalming; and persons who did not, or could not, then take out licenses by virtue of being already in the business or profession were required to take qualifying examinations for licenses. The board was given power to revoke any license on proper cause and after full hearing of all parties in interest. Ritz was licensed by the board without examination, because, as appears from testimony of members of the board, they knew of their own personal knowledge, and from statements of others, that he had done the work of undertaking and embalming as an assistant, and to some extent independently, although his regular business was that of providing hacks or automobiles for funerals, and because they knew that he was qualified for the work by experience. This they considered sufficient qualification under the act. The appellants filed with the board a protest and request for revocation, and, this having been refused applied for the writ of mandamus. Evidence was produced before the court tending to show that Ritz had, throughout his working life, assisted to some extent in the work of undertaking and embalming, had taken a course of instruction in embalming under an expert at the John Hopkins Medical School and embalmed bodies there, and during the influenza epidemic some years back had entire charge of 25 or 30 funerals.

The trial judge concluded...