Noble v. Dibble

• Decision Date: 10 April 1922
• Docket Number: 16770.
• Citation: 205 P. 1049,119 Wash. 509
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: NOBLE et al. v. DIBBLE et al.

205 P. 1049

119 Wash. 509

NOBLE et al. v. DIBBLE et al.

No. 16770.

Supreme Court of Washington

April 10, 1922

Department 1.

Appeal from Superior Court, Thurston County; D. F. Wright, Judge.

Action by Leon Noble and others to enjoin Fred J. Dibble and others State Director of Licenses and members of the Dental Examining Board, from making examinations and issuing certificates and to enjoin the State Auditor from issuing and the State Treasurer from paying, warrants to the examining committee. From a judgment dismissing the action plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

J. W A. Nichols and Browder Brown, both of Tacoma, for appellants.

Lindsay L. Thompson, of Olympia, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

The purpose of this action is to enjoin the state director of licenses and the dental examining board from making examinations for the purpose of permitting persons to practice dentistry in this state, and to prohibit them from issuing any certificates authorizing such practice, and to enjoin the state auditor from issuing warrants to the examining committee in payment for their services, and the state treasurer from paying any such warrants. The complaint alleges that the plaintiffs are practicing dentists and are taxpayers in the state of Washington. They allege that the director of licenses and the dental examining board are proceeding from time to time to make examinations and issue certificates authorizing persons to practice the profession of dentistry in this state, and that in so doing they are acting without any warrant of law and in violation of the rights and privileges of the plaintiffs. A demurrer to the complaint on the various statutory grounds was sustained. The plaintiffs refused to further plead, and judgment was entered dismissing the action, from which judgment this appeal is taken.

In this court appellants seem to contend that the action of the lower court was wrong because: First, section 8412 et seq. of Rem. Code, being the statute with reference to the practice of dentistry, is unconstitutional; and, second, that the federal District Court sitting in this state has held the act to be unconstitutional, and such decision is binding upon this court. The respondents contend that the appellants are not entitled to maintain this action. We will not decide that question, but will asume, for the purpose of this action that they may maintain it.

On the question of the constitutionality of the dental practice act the appellants give no distinct reason for their contention, but support it and make their argument through the recent case of Noble v. Douglas (D. C.) 274 F. 672. In that case Judge Cushman, in an exhaustive and able opinion, concludes that the dentistry act of this state is unconstitutional.

The constitutionality of this act is no longer an open question in this state. In the Matter of the Petition of Thompson, 36 Wash. 377, 78 P. 899, 2 Ann. Cas. 149, the validity of this identical act was first raised, and we held it to...