Reid v. Robertson
| Decision Date | 07 March 1947 |
| Citation | 304 Ky. 509,200 S.W.2d 900 |
| Parties | REID v. ROBERTSON et al. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied April 29, 1947.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Franklin County; W. B. Ardery, Judge.
Action by Samuel C. Reid against Elliott Robertson and others, as chairmen and members of the Veterinary Board of Examiners, to compel the board to comply with plaintiff's request for a certificate to practice as a veterinarian and to issue to him a certificate without subjecting him to an examination. From a judgment dismissing the petition the plaintiff appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
James F. Clay and E. C. Newlin, both of Danville, for appellant.
Eldon S. Dummit, Atty. Gen., and Emmett V. Mittlebeeler, Asst Atty. Gen., for appellees.
At the regular 1946 session of the General Assembly of Kentucky it enacted Chapter 238 on page 639 of the published Kentucky Acts of that year.
For a proper understanding of the questions here involved we deem it necessary and proper to insert herein the entire chapter which is:
The Act was not approved by the Governor and did not take effect until 90 days after the adjournment of the session at which it was passed, under the provisions of section 55 of our Constitution. After the chapter became effective appellant, Samuel C. Reid, the sole beneficiary under the act, made application to the board of Veterinary Examiners, of which the appellee, Eliott Robertson, is chairman, by virtue of his office, for a certificate qualifying him to practice veterinary medicine, surgery and dentistry in the Commonwealth without taking the required examination, and at the same time he tendered to the board the required fee of $7. The board declined to issue the requested certificate, on the ground that appellant did not come within any of the exemptions for examination under the present statutes requiring certificates to be issued to members of that profession, which is not embodied in Chapter 321 of the 1946 edition of KRS in sections 321.010 to and including 321.170. Such refusal by the board was because it concluded that chapter 238 of the 1946 act (inserted above) was void because in violation of section 3 and subsection 29 of section 59 of our Constitution.
Section 3, which is a part of our Bill of Rights, so far as is applicable, says: 'All men, when they form a social compact, are equal; and no grant of exclusive, separate public emoluments or privileges shall be made to any man or set of men, except in consideration of public services, * * *'.
Section 59 says, in part: 'The General Assembly shall not pass local or special acts concerning any of the following subjects, or for any of the following purposes, * * *'. It then lists 28 subjects concerning which no local or special laws shall be enacted, and in its 29th listing it inhibits the enactment of local or special laws 'in all other cases where a general law can be made applicable, no special law shall be enacted.'
After the 1946 Act became effective, and after the board refused to issue the certificate applied for by appellant pursuant to its provisions, he filed this action in the Franklin circuit court against the chairman and other members of the Veterinary Board of Examiners to compel the board to comply with the appellant's request and issue to him a certificate without subjecting him to an examination as required by Chapter 321 of the 1946 edition of KRS, except in certain exempted cases none of which are alleged or shown to apply to appellant, or that under the terms of such exemptions from examination under the current statute he is entitled to the certificate for which he applied and was refused. That fact appears to have been known by the members of the Legislature, which was the only possible reason for passing Chapter 238 of the 1946 Acts, since if appellant was eligible to receive the certificate for which he applied, under the exceptions in Chapter 321 of KRS there would have been no reason whatever for the enactment of the 1946 Act. The court sustained appellees' demurrer filed to the petition as amended, and he declining to plead further it was dismissed, from which he prosecutes this appeal.
In the 'whereas' paragraph of Chapter 238 of the 1946 Acts it is recited that appellant 'has had professional training in the practice of veterinary medicine, surgery and dentistry in this Commonwealth for a period of more than one year prior to July 1, 1916, upon which date the veterinary licensing law was enacted in this Commonwealth.' Therefore, it is apparent that the Legislature was seeking to reinstate the status of appellant that he occupied under the exempting clause from examination to practice the profession for which he seeks qualification, as contained in the 1916 Act, which is Chapter 71 on page 589 of the published acts of that year.
Section (1) of that act created the State Board of Veterinary Examiners with the Commissioner of Agriculture, Labor and Statistics as its chairman. Section (3) required the board to notify all persons then practicing veterinary medicine, surgery and dentistry in the Commonwealth of the provisions of that act including 'every person who has been a practitioner of veterinary medicine, surgery or dentistry in this Commonwealth for a period of one year next prior to the passage of this act', which is followed by the provision that all graduates of a school teaching the principles of such profession, and all of those practicing at that time for a period of one year before the taking effect of that Act should be entitled to certificates which the board was directed to issue to them without examination. However, in section (7) of the act it is provided that the recipient of a certificate thereunder 'shall forthwith have it recorded in the office of the county clerk of the county in which he makes his residence.'
Further along in the latter section, requiring the registering of the certificate, it is provided that: 'Until the certificate of license is recorded, the holder shall not exercise any of the rights or privileges therein conferred; and in case said certificate is not recorded within three months from the date of its issuance it shall become invalid.'
Section 10 of Chapter 71 of the Acts of 1916 says:
In subsection (3) of section 13 of the 1916 Act it is prescribed, inter alia, that in 'all cases of refusal suspension or revocation the applicant or holder may appeal to the Governor, who may affirm or overrule the decision of the board.' That provision is also contained in the present Chapter 321 of KRS. Appellant evidently did not make application for a certificate under the provisions of the 1916 Act, or if granted one, that he did not have it registered as required by section 10 of the 1916 Act. Therefore, after the required date for registration of his certificate, if he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Calloway Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't v. Woodall
..., 239 S.W.2d 991 (Ky. 1951) (resolution authorizing individual to engage in the practice of dentistry); Reid v. Robertson , 304 Ky. 509, 510, 200 S.W.2d 900, 901 (1947) (act to provide individual a veterinary medicine license).20 Johnson v. Gans Furniture Indust., Inc. , 114 S.W.3d 850, 856......
-
Zuckerman v. Bevin
...Smith , 875 S.W.2d 873, 877 (Ky. 1994) (emphasis added). Special legislation "does not have a uniform operation." Reid v. Robertson , 304 Ky. 509, 200 S.W.2d 900, 903 (1947). "[A] statute does not have a uniform operation if it does not relate to persons, entities, or things as a class, but......
-
Hayes v. State Property and Bldgs. Com'n, s. 86-SC-918-T
...on behalf of the government, not those services which indirectly, incidentally or remotely benefit the public. Reid v. Robertson, 304 Ky. 509, 200 S.W.2d 900 (1947). Grimm v. Malone, Ky., 358 S.W.2d 496 (1962) and Watkins v. Fugazzi, Ky., 394 S.W.2d 594 (1965), cited as authority in the maj......
-
Com. v. McCoun
...the law. Shaw v. Fox, 246 Ky. 342, 55 S.W.2d 11; Johnson v. Commonwealth, ex rel. Meredith, 291 Ky. 829, 165 S.W.2d 820; Reid v. Robertson, 304 Ky. 509, 200 S.W.2d 900; Manning v. Sims, 308 Ky. 587, 213 S.W.2d 577, 5 A.L.R.2d 1154. Although there may be just and meritorious claims for more ......