Mower v. State Department of Health

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
Writing for the CourtMALTBIE, J.
Citation108 Conn. 74,142 A. 473
PartiesMOWER v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.
Decision Date18 June 1928

142 A. 473

108 Conn. 74

MOWER
v.
STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

June 18, 1928


Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Allyn L. Brown, Judge.

The State Department of Health revoked the license of Etamar A. Mower to practice medicine, and, from a judgment of the superior court dismissing his appeal, Etamar A. Mower appeals. No error.

Samuel E. Hoyt and Harry L. Edlin, both of New Haven, for appellant.

James W. Carpenter, of Hartford, Benjamin W. Alling, Atty. Gen., and Cyril Coleman [108 Conn. 76] and J. H. Bartholomew, Jr., both of Hartford, for appellee. [142 A. 474]

Argued before MALTBIE, HAINES, HINMAN, BANKS, AND WOLFE, JJ.

MALTBIE, J.

Prior to January, 1924, the appellant had been examined and found qualified to practice medicine by the Connecticut eclectic medical examining Board, had received from it certificates to that effect, and from the state department of health a certificate of registration, commonly called a license, authorizing him to practice. In January, 1924, upon the request of all members of the examining Board, the state department of health revoked this license upon the ground that it had been procured by fraud. From this action of the state department of health he appealed to the superior court, in accordance with the provisions of section 2860 of the General Statutes, then in force, and that court dismissed the appeal. From this judgment he has appealed to this court.

The appeal from the revocation of his license by the state department of health was taken to the superior court for Hartford county. At the same time several appeals were taken by persons whose licenses had also been revoked, some to the superior court for Hartford county, others to the superior court for other counties. While these appeals were pending, the Legislature amended section 2860 of the General Statutes (Public Acts 1927, c. 229), adding a provision which authorized any judge of the superior court upon motion, if in his opinion the cause of justice required it, to order any appeal pending in that court to be transferred to the superior court in any other county and expressly stating that this provision should apply to all appeals pending at the time of the passage of the act. Thereafter this appeal, with several others from three counties, were ordered transferred to the superior court in New Haven county, where a number of like appeals were then pending. The act was [108 Conn. 77] approved May 2, 1927, and took effect upon its passage. On June 16th another act amendatory of section 2860 was approved, which contained no provision for transferring appeals. Public Acts of 1927, c. 317, § 14. It had no provision that it should take effect upon it passage, and hence it did not take effect until July 1, 1927. Public Acts of 1921, c. 350. The appellant claims that the superior court in New Haven county was without right to proceed with the appeals which were transferred to it because the act authorizing the transfer was repealed before they were tried. But all the transfers were actually made while the earlier act was in effect, so that, when the later act became effective, they were all pending in the superior court for New Haven county, and the later act certainly cannot be construed as intended to remand them back to the county from which they came. The appellant also claims that the first act was passed for the temporary and special purpose of transferring these particular appeals; but we cannot adopt that view as the basis of our decision because the act is general in terms and may well represent a general intent in the mind of the Legislature at the time it was passed, though in the later act, a revision of the whole law concerning the practice of the healing arts, a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 practice notes
  • State v. Orsini
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • 1 Junio 1982
    ...from venue. Ibid.; Fine v. Wencke, 117 Conn. 683, 684, [187 Conn. 270] 169 A. 58 (1933); Mower v. State Department of Health, 108 Conn. 74, 77, 142 A. 473 (1928). Practice Book §§ 809 and 810 provide that a request for transfer of prosecution must be made before trial or shall otherwise be ......
  • Jaffe v. State Dep't Of Health.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • 8 Febrero 1949
    ...adequately protected. Brein v. Connecticut Eclectic Examining Board, supra, 103 Conn. 84, 130 A. 289; Mower v. State Department of Health, 108 Conn. 74, 78, 142 A. 473; State ex rel. Hurwitz v. North, 271 U.S. 40, 42, 46 S.Ct. 384, 70 L.Ed. 818, with comment on that case in Kram v. Public U......
  • Fort Trumbull Conservancy, LLC v. New London, No. 17753.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • 3 Julio 2007
    ...venue, for the Superior Court is one court for the whole state.'" Id., at 208-209, 440 A.2d 286, quoting Mower v. Dept. of Health, 108 Conn. 74, 77, 142 A. 473 (1928). Finally, Justice Shea noted in his dissent that, while the plaintiff's appeal in Farricielli was pending in the trial ......
  • Farricielli v. Connecticut Personnel Appeal Bd.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • 9 Febrero 1982
    ...144 Conn. 600, 604, 136 A.2d 497 (1957); Fine v. Wencke, 117 Conn. 683, 684, 169 A. 58 (1933); Mower v. State Department of Health, 108 Conn. 74, 77, 142 A. 473 (1928). In Savings Bank of Danbury v. Downs, 74 Conn. 87, 89-90, 49 A. 913 (1901), a case cited by the majority, where the statute......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
21 cases
  • State v. Orsini
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • 1 Junio 1982
    ...from venue. Ibid.; Fine v. Wencke, 117 Conn. 683, 684, [187 Conn. 270] 169 A. 58 (1933); Mower v. State Department of Health, 108 Conn. 74, 77, 142 A. 473 (1928). Practice Book §§ 809 and 810 provide that a request for transfer of prosecution must be made before trial or shall otherwise be ......
  • Jaffe v. State Dep't Of Health.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • 8 Febrero 1949
    ...adequately protected. Brein v. Connecticut Eclectic Examining Board, supra, 103 Conn. 84, 130 A. 289; Mower v. State Department of Health, 108 Conn. 74, 78, 142 A. 473; State ex rel. Hurwitz v. North, 271 U.S. 40, 42, 46 S.Ct. 384, 70 L.Ed. 818, with comment on that case in Kram v. Public U......
  • Fort Trumbull Conservancy, LLC v. New London, No. 17753.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • 3 Julio 2007
    ..."`in venue, for the Superior Court is one court for the whole state.'" Id., at 208-209, 440 A.2d 286, quoting Mower v. Dept. of Health, 108 Conn. 74, 77, 142 A. 473 (1928). Finally, Justice Shea noted in his dissent that, while the plaintiff's appeal in Farricielli was pending in the trial ......
  • Farricielli v. Connecticut Personnel Appeal Bd.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • 9 Febrero 1982
    ...144 Conn. 600, 604, 136 A.2d 497 (1957); Fine v. Wencke, 117 Conn. 683, 684, 169 A. 58 (1933); Mower v. State Department of Health, 108 Conn. 74, 77, 142 A. 473 (1928). In Savings Bank of Danbury v. Downs, 74 Conn. 87, 89-90, 49 A. 913 (1901), a case cited by the majority, where the statute......
  • 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