Prata Undertaking Co. v. State Bd. of Embalming & Funeral Directing

• Decision Date: 09 January 1936
• Docket Number: No. 590.,590.
• Citation: 182 A. 808
• Parties: PRATA UNDERTAKING CO. v. STATE BOARD OF EMBALMING & FUNERAL DIRECTING.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

182 A. 808

PRATA UNDERTAKING CO.

v. STATE BOARD OF EMBALMING & FUNERAL DIRECTING.

No. 590.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

Jan. 9, 1936.

Case certified from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties.

Proceeding by the State Board of Embalming & Funeral Directing against the Praia Undertaking Company. From a decision of the State Board revoking defendant's funeral directing license, defendant appealed to the Superior Court which certified questions.

Questions answered.

Wayne H. Whitman and Adrien W. Hebert, both of Providence, for appellants.

John P. Ffartigan, Atty. Gen., and Michael De Ciantis, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

BAKER, Justice.

The record in this case shows that the Prata Undertaking Company, Inc., hereinafter referred to as the company, was notified to appear before the state board of registration in embalming and funeral directing to show cause why its license to conduct its business should not be revoked, because of alleged violations by it of certain sections of chapter 1886 of Public Laws 1932. Thereafter, specific charges were filed and the board held a hearing at which the company was represented by counsel, and witnesses testified under oath. Following the hearing, a written decision was filed in which, after making certain findings of fact, the board held that the company had violated the provisions of chapter 1886, Public Laws 1932, and revoked its funeral directing license. In the decision one Loper is named for the first time in the proceedings.

From this finding and order by the board, the company and Loper duly appealed to the superior court. When the appeal came on for hearing in that court, the appellants raised certain questions relating to the constitutionality of chapter 1886 of Public Laws 1932, and these questions are now before us for determination, having been certified by the superior court in accordance with Gen. Laws 1923, c. 348, § 1.

The questions certified, together with a reference to the portions of the United States and State Constitutions involved, are as follows:

"(1) Is said chapter 1886 of the Public Laws or any of the sections thereof unconstitutional and void, in that the provisions thereof are in conflict (for any of the reasons stated and claimed in the Reasons of Appeal), with the rights of the appellants or cither of them under the following provisions contained in section 2 of article 1 of the Constitution of the State of Rhode Island which reads as follows: 'Sec. 2. All free Governments are instituted for the protection, safety and happiness of the people. All laws, therefore, should be made for the good of the whole. * * *'

"(2) Is said chapter 1886 of the Public Laws or any of the sections thereof unconstitutional and void, in that the provisions thereof are in conflict (for any of the reasons stated and claimed in the Reasons of Appeal), with the rights of the appellants or either of them under the following provisions contained in section 1 of article 14 of Amendment of the United States Constitution which reads as follows: 'Section 1. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. * * *'

"(3) Is said chapter 1886 of the Public Laws or any of the sections thereof unconstitutional and void, in that the provisions thereof are in conflict (for any of the reasons stated and claimed in the Reasons of Appeal), with the rights of the appellants or either of them under the following provisions contained in section 1 of article 14 of Amendment of the United States Constitution which reads as follows: 'Section 1. * * * nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.'

"(4) Is said chapter 1886 of the Public Laws or any of the sections thereof, unconstitutional and void, in that the provisions thereof are in conflict (for any of the reasons stated and claimed in the Reasons of Appeal), with the rights of the appellants or either of them under the provisions of section 1 of article 14 of Amendment to the United States Constitution which reads as follows: 'Section 1. * * * nor' (shall any state) 'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.'"

It is clear that the object of Public Laws 1932, c. 1886, which is in amendment of and in addition to General Laws 1923, c. 170, is to provide that the undertaking business in its different phases may be operated lawfully only according to certain regulations and restrictions therein contained. Under present conditions of society and methods of living, it has become increasingly necessary, in the interest of the general public, for legislative bodies to regulate and control within certain limits the conduct of various businesses, trades, and professions. Examples of such regulation by legislative act may be found in branches of the medical profession, dentistry, public accounting, barbering, trained nursing, banking, and in many other lines of endeavor. The exercise by the Legislature of the right to so regulate and control is now fully recognized and justified under the police power, especially when the professions and occupations are of a public or quasi public nature. Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1, 35 S.Ct. 240, 59 L.Ed. 441, L.R.A.1915C, 960, and cases cited. The undertaking business is an enterprise of this type, and (he safeguarding of the public in relation to its health, safety, morals, comfort, and general welfare is the primary object sought by and is the basis for such legislation. People v. Ringe, 197 N.Y. 143, 90 N.E. 451. 27 L.R.A.(N.S.) 528, 18 Ann.Cas. 474; Keller v. State, 122 Md. 677, 90 A. 603: Miller v. Johnson, 110 Kan. 135, 202 P. 619; State v. Norvell, 137 Tenn. 82. 191 S.W. 536, L.R.A.1917D, 586. It is of importance to all that such a business be conducted properly, and only by those who are qualified to carry out its responsibilities. Questions relating to the care of dead human bodies, their embalming and transportation, the location of the business and its equipment, sanitation, danger of infection or contagion from disease, the obtaining of required certificates and permits before acting, the orderly conduct of funerals and burials, and the like, are all of public concern.

The appellants admit that the Legislature has ample power and authority to pass acts regulating and controlling the operation of the business herein involved. They contend, however, that such legislation must be reasonable and not in violation of their constitutional rights, and they urge that certain parts of section 2 of chapter 1886, Public Laws 1932, hereinafter set out are entirely arbitrary and unreasonable in their scope and effect, with the result that they are confiscatory in their nature, and if enforced will prevent the company from doing business. On the other hand, the state urges, that the act in question is reasonable and not oppressive, considering all the interests concerned, and is a proper exercise of the police power by the Legislature, and is constitutional in all its parts.

The particular parts of section 2 of chapter 1886, above referred to, read as follows:

"Sec. 9. Every certificate issued hereunder shall specify the name of the person to whom it was issued, and shall be displayed conspicuously in his place of business or employment. Certificates issued under the provisions of this chapter shall not be assignable. The board shall have the power to revoke or suspend any certificate of registration, issued by it under this chapter, for gross incompetency, for unprofessional conduct, or for other cause deemed sufficient in the judgment of said board. * * *

"Sec. 13. No person who has promoted or is promoting, or has participated in or is participating in any scheme or plan in the nature of a burial association or a burial certificate plan wherein the rights of the public are not properly protected, or wherein there is any element of fraud, or wherein there is contained any agreement or provision that deprives heirs or next of kin from freedom of choice as to the type or style of funeral or the type or style or price of equipment used in connection with the funeral or the freedom of choice as to what funeral director shall be employed shall be entitled to any certificate under the provisions of this chapter, and the board shall revoke the certificate of any holder thereof who has engaged, directly or indirectly in the practices enumerated in this section; provided, however, that nothing herein contained shall be construed so as to prevent any such person from performing his obligations under any contract executed prior to the effective date of this act.

"Sec. 14. Every funeral director or embalmer, or the agents or representatives thereof, who pays, or causes to be paid, directly or indirectly, any sum of money or other valuable consideration for the securing of business, and every person who accepts any sum of money or other valuable consideration, directly or indirectly, from a funeral director or embalmer in order that the latter may obtain business, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be punished as hereinafter provided, and the certificate of any embalmer or funeral director violating the provisions of this section or whose agents or servants violate the provisions thereof, shall be revoked by the board."

It is well settled that the court will make every reasonable intendment in favor of the constitutionality of a legislative act, and, in so far as any presumption exists, it is in favor of so holding. Furthermore, the burden of proving the unconstitutionality of any statute is upon the party raising the question, and he must prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Kofines, 33 R.I. 211, 80 A. 432, Ann. Cas.1913C, 1120; East Shore Land Co. v. Peckham, 33 R.I. 541, 82 A. 487; Sayles v. Foley, 38 R.I. 484, 96 A. 340; Manufacturers' Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Clarke, 41 R.I. 277, 103 A. 931; ...