Moore v. Robinson

• Decision Date: 11 October 1949
• Docket Number: 16733.
• Citation: 55 S.E.2d 711,206 Ga. 27
• Parties: MOORE et al. v. ROBINSON.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

55 S.E.2d 711

206 Ga. 27

MOORE et al. v. ROBINSON.

No. 16733.

Supreme Court of Georgia

October 11, 1949

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Where the question involved is one of public right, and the purpose of the suit is to procure to enforcement of a public duty, no legal or special interest need be shown, but it shall be sufficient that the plaintiff is interested in having the laws executed and the duty in question enforced.

(a) Injunction will lie, and it is the appropriate remedy to be employed, to prevent the commission of a wrongful act by an officer or agent of this State, even when acting under color of his office but without lawful authority, and beyond the scope of his official power.

2. Where suit is brought against an officer of this State, even where acting under color of his office but beyond the scope of his authority, either to prevent the commission of a wrongful act or to redress one which has been committed while so acting, he can not claim immunity from suit upon the ground that the suit is in effect one against the State.

3. 'The superior courts, on the trial of any civil case shall give effect to all of the rights of the parties, legal or equitable, or both, and apply on such trial remedies or relief, legal or equitable, or both, in favor of either party, such as the nature of the case may allow or require.' Code, § 37-901.

4. A petition is duplicitous when it contains in the same count for the recovery of a single demand, more than one fact or set of facts any one of which would justify the recovery.

(a) When tested by the above rule, the petition in the instant case is not duplicitous, and the court properly overruled a special demurrer attacking it upon the ground of duplicity.

(b) The other grounds of special demurrer, being without merit, were properly overruled.

5. A judgment construing a statute will not be reversed because of the exclusion of evidence which would not, if admitted, authorize a different interpretation.

6. It is the duty of a court in construing a statute to ascertain and give full effect to the legislative intent, and in doing so the sources of enlightenment are not limited; interpretation is a matter addressed solely to the intelligence, information, and learning of the udge, and he is not restricted as to the means by which he may enlarge those faculties. In the present case, and for reasons stated in the corresponding division of the opinion, the trial judge properly construed the words, 'Four-year standard college course,' as they are used in the act of 1939, Ga.L.1939, p. 252, which amended the original Chiropractic Act of 1921, Ga.L.1921, p. 169, to mean a four-year college course of nine months each.

7. The Board of Chiropractic Examiners may, in its discretion, admit by comity any person licensed to practice chiropractic under the laws of another State having requirements equal to those required in this State. Code, § 84-510. In the instant case, neither the evidence nor the law authorized the trial judge to order the Board of Chiropractic Examiners to admit by comity all persons applying therefor who have had a four-year college course of nine months each. The board may, in its discretion, admit by comity nonresident applicants who qualify under the provisions of the Georgia Chiropractic Act as amended, but its discretion will be controlled only when abused.

8. The evidence fully authorized the trial judge to grant an interlocutory injunction restraining the Board of Chiropractic Examiners from receiving applications from persons who are not authorized under the act as amended to take the examination provided for thereby; and also from admitting by comity those nonresident applicants for a license to practice chiropractic in this State who likewise do not possess the required educational qualifications.

(a) But when a permanent injunction is granted on an interlocutory hearing, as in this case, direction will be, and is, given that the judgment be so changed as to be operative only until the final hearing, or the further order of the court. Pullen v. Meadors, 196 Ga. 796, 27 S.E.2d 655.

On March 29, 1949, Dr. Howard E. Robinson, alleging himself to be a duly licensed and practicing chiropractor, and a citizen and resident of the State of Georgia, filed a petition in the Superior Court of Crisp County, in which he prayed for injunctive and general relief against the Georgia Board of Chiropractic Examiners, officially as such, and its individual members. He alleged: that the laws of Georgia prescribe certain qualifications which a person who desires to take the chiropractic examination and to practice chiropractic in the State of Georgia must have, among which is one requiring him to be a person 'of good character and a graduate of a chartered chiropractic school or college which teaches only attendance courses and requiring four standard college years of nine months each;' that the defendants, individually and in their official capacity as members of the Georgia Board of Chiropractic Examiners, have accepted applications, and are preparing to issue licenses to persons with a scholastic attainment of less than that prescribed by law; that the board is preparing to meet, give examinations, and issue licenses, both as a result of examination and by comity, during the first week in April, 1949, all in violation of the chiropractic laws of Georgia; that the practice of chiropractic is the practice of one of the learned professions, namely, that of healing the sick, and as such a profession it is of vital interest to the members of the profession and to the public in general to see that the profession of chiropractic maintains the highest educational standards possible; that the right to practice chiropractic is a valuable right which is entitled to protection under the Constitution and laws of the State of Georgia; that the public, the chiropractic profession generally, and the petitioner particularly are entitled to be protected from the practice of chiropractic by ignorant pretenders, charlatans, unskilled and unlearned persons; that the petitioner, both as a citizen and resident of the State of Georgia, and as a practicing chiropractor, will be irreparably injured and will suffer economic loss if persons other than those qualified under the laws of Georgia are permitted to take the chiropractic examination and become licensed and practicing chiropractors, either as a result of the examination or by comity; that the reputation of the chiropractic profession generally, and the petitioner's professional reputation particularly, will likewise be damaged; that if the board, and the individual members thereof, are not restrained and enjoined from permitting persons with educational qualifications of less than those set out in the Chiropractic Act as amended, from taking the examination and from being licensed to practice that profession, either as a result of the examination or by comity, there will be an influx of unskilled and improperly trained persons and charlatans admitted to practice chiropractic in Georgia, to the detriment of the public in general, the Georgia chiropractic profession, and the petitioner in particular; that such improperly licensed persons will place in danger the life and limb of citizens of the State of Georgia; and that the petitioner has no adequate remedy at law. On presentation of the petition an interlocutory hearing was set for April 9, 1949, and an order was granted restraining the Board of Chiropractic Examiners, the individual members thereof, and their successors in office, from permitting any person or persons to take the chiropractic examination, or to be licensed to practice chiropractic in the State of Georgia, either as a result of examination, by comity, or otherwise, with educational attainments of less than those prescribed by the Georgia Chiropractic Act as amended by the act of 1939, to wit: graduates of a chartered chiropractic school or college which teaches only attendance courses and requires a course of study of at least four years of nine months each, or persons who had completed thirty-six months attendance in such an institution. On March 31, 1949, the restraining order was modified so as to authorize and permit the Board of Chiropractic Examiners to hold the examination scheduled for April 1 and 2, 1949, but the order of modification provided that the board should not issue any license to any applicant as a result of the examination until further ordered. On April 5, 1949, for reasons stated in the order, the interlocutory hearing which had been originally set for April 9, 1949, was postponed and a hearing was set for April 16, 1949, at Cordele, Georgia. In the same order the original restraining order was further modified so as to authorize and permit the board to grade immediately the examination papers of those who had taken the examination and who possessed the educational attainments set out in the restraining order and issue a license to such of them as had successfully passed the examination. The sufficiency of the petition to state a cause of action for any of the relief prayed was attacked by general demurrer, and special demurrers were also interposed. The demurrers were all overruled, and that judgment is properly excepted to. The defendants filed a joint answer on April 16, 1949. They admitted that the several individuals named as defendants in the petition constitute the present membership of the Board of Chiropractic Examiners for the State of Georgia. For want of sufficient information, they would neither admit nor deny that the petitioner is a resident and citizen of the State or a duly licensed and practicing chiropractor. They denied all of the other...