Morse v. State Board of Medical Examiners

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
Writing for the CourtKey
Citation122 S.W. 446
Decision Date13 October 1909
PartiesMORSE v. STATE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS.
122 S.W. 446
MORSE
v.
STATE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS.
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.
October 13, 1909.

Page 447

Appeal from District Court, McLennan County; Marshall Surratt, Judge.

Application for mandamus by Stephen Alfred Morse against the State Board of Medical Examiners. From a judgment dismissing the writ, petitioner appeals. Affirmed.

Baker & Thomas, for appellant. Scott, Sanford & Ross, for appellee.

KEY, J.


Appellant, as relator, brought this suit against appellees, as respondents, whereby he sought a writ of mandamus to compel respondents to issue to him verification license to practice medicine. He alleged in his petition that he was legally licensed to practice medicine throughout the state of Texas on the 25th day of March, 1895, that he had presented such license to respondents, the State Board of Medical Examiners created under the act of April 17, 1907 (Laws 1907, p. 224, c. 123), regulating the practice of medicine, and had in all other respects complied with the law, and that respondents had unlawfully refused to issue to him the verification license provided for in the act referred to. The answer of respondents, among other things, averred that relator had been guilty of grossly unprofessional or dishonorable conduct, of a character likely to deceive and defraud the public, setting forth in detail the conduct referred to, and assigned such conduct as their reason for refusing to issue to relator a verification license, and relied upon section 11 of the act referred to to support such refusal. By supplemental petition relator excepted to respondents' answer upon the ground that so much of the act referred to as attempted to authorize respondents to refuse to allow a license to practice medicine on account of "other grossly unprofessional or dishonorable conduct of a character likely to deceive or defraud the public" is void for the want of certainty and is retroactive in its effect. The trial court overruled relator's exceptions to respondents' answer and rendered judgment in favor of respondents, and relator has appealed and presents the case in this court upon three assignments of error, all of which present substantially the same question, which is the validity of that portion of the statute which authorizes respondents to refuse a license on account of grossly unprofessional or dishonorable conduct, etc.

The Thirtieth Legislature enacted a law intended to cover the whole subject of the practice of medicine in this state. Section 1 provides for the creation of a board of medical examiners for the state, the number and qualifications of its members, that the several schools of medicine shall be represented thereon, the manner of the appointment of the members, their term of office, etc. Section 2 provides for the organization and officers and meetings and internal government of the board. Section 3 provides for the keeping of the records of the board. Section 4 makes it unlawful for any person to practice medicine in the state except he first comply with the requirements of this act. Section 5 prescribes the manner and form of registration by the practitioner of his authority with the district clerk. Under section 6 it is made necessary for all lawful practitioners of medicine in the state to apply to said board and obtain from it a license, and also provides for reciprocity with other states. Sections 7-9 provide for the examination of applicants for licenses, who were not theretofore lawful practitioners. Section 10 names certain classes that are exempt from the operation of this act. Section 11 makes provision for the denial by the board of licenses, naming the causes for which such denial may be made. Section 12 provides for the revocation of licenses by the courts. Section 13 designates those who are subject to the provisions of this act. Section 14 prescribes the penalty for violation of the act. Section 15 specifies the time which will be allowed those who were theretofore lawful practitioners in which to obtain license. Section 16 defines...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 practice notes
  • Scott v. Texas State Board of Medical Examiners, No. A-10105
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • November 11, 1964
    ...against the attack that the language is vague, uncertain and indefinite. Morse v. State Board of Medical Examiners, 57 Tex.Civ.App. 93, 122 S.W. 446 (1909, wr. ref.); Berry v. State, 135 S.W. 631 (C.C.A.1911, wr, ref.): cf. Texas State Board of Medical Examiners v. Koepsel, 159 Tex. 479, 32......
  • State ex rel. Lentine v. State Board of Health, No. 31168.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 6, 1933
    ...Richards v. State Board of Dental Examiners, 88 Kan. 684, 129 Pac. 1128, 43 L.R.A. (N.S.) 915; Morse v. State Board of Medical Examiners, 122 S.W. 446; State v. Thompson, 160 Mo. 333. (3) Acts of State Board of Health are exercise of police power of State. State ex rel. Farber v. Shot, 263 ......
  • Korndorffer v. Texas State Board of Medical Exam., No. 286
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Civil Appeals of Texas
    • December 10, 1969
    ...of the applications for writs of error by this Court in the Morse case in 1909 (Morse v. State Board of Medical Examiners, Tex.Civ.App., 122 S.W. 446) and the Berry case in 1911 (Berry v. State, Tex.Civ.App., 135 S.W. 631) did not, as today, necessarily have the effect of approving the opin......
  • Waller v. State, No. 4133.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • January 29, 1934
    ...of Medical Examiners, supra. Appellee cites us to the Texas cases of Morse v. State Board of Medical Examiners, 57 Tex. Civ. App. 93, 122 S. W. 446, and Berry v. State (Tex. Civ. App.) 135 S. W. 631, as precedents which support the Trial Court's judgment herein. Both these were under a stat......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • Scott v. Texas State Board of Medical Examiners, No. A-10105
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • November 11, 1964
    ...against the attack that the language is vague, uncertain and indefinite. Morse v. State Board of Medical Examiners, 57 Tex.Civ.App. 93, 122 S.W. 446 (1909, wr. ref.); Berry v. State, 135 S.W. 631 (C.C.A.1911, wr, ref.): cf. Texas State Board of Medical Examiners v. Koepsel, 159 Tex. 479, 32......
  • State ex rel. Lentine v. State Board of Health, No. 31168.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 6, 1933
    ...Richards v. State Board of Dental Examiners, 88 Kan. 684, 129 Pac. 1128, 43 L.R.A. (N.S.) 915; Morse v. State Board of Medical Examiners, 122 S.W. 446; State v. Thompson, 160 Mo. 333. (3) Acts of State Board of Health are exercise of police power of State. State ex rel. Farber v. Shot, 263 ......
  • Korndorffer v. Texas State Board of Medical Exam., No. 286
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Civil Appeals of Texas
    • December 10, 1969
    ...of the applications for writs of error by this Court in the Morse case in 1909 (Morse v. State Board of Medical Examiners, Tex.Civ.App., 122 S.W. 446) and the Berry case in 1911 (Berry v. State, Tex.Civ.App., 135 S.W. 631) did not, as today, necessarily have the effect of approving the opin......
  • Waller v. State, No. 4133.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • January 29, 1934
    ...of Medical Examiners, supra. Appellee cites us to the Texas cases of Morse v. State Board of Medical Examiners, 57 Tex. Civ. App. 93, 122 S. W. 446, and Berry v. State (Tex. Civ. App.) 135 S. W. 631, as precedents which support the Trial Court's judgment herein. Both these were under a stat......
  • 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