Samples v. State
Decision Date | 12 June 1923 |
Docket Number | 7 Div. 871. [*] |
Citation | 98 So. 211,19 Ala.App. 478 |
Parties | SAMPLES v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied Nov. 27, 1923.
Appeal from Circuit Court, De Kalb County; W. W. Haralson, Judge.
Orville Samples was convicted of practicing dentistry without a license, and appeals. Affirmed.
Isbell & Scott, of Ft. Payne, for appellant.
Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Lamar Field, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The indictment charged that the defendant practiced, or engaged in the business of, dentistry without a license.
Defendant was tried by the court without the intervention of a jury was found guilty, and fined $100.
The demurrer which was interposed to the indictment is not referred to in the judgment entry, and cannot therefore be passed upon by this court. Bradford v. State, 18 Ala. App. 401, 92 So. 17.
Defendant's plea A, to which demurrer was properly sustained, reads as follows:
The appellant's counsel insist that the defendant had acquired a vested right and estate in his profession under the act of 1915, which provides:
"That all persons who have practiced dentistry or dental surgery in this state for a period of twenty years or more shall be permitted to continue in the practice of the said profession without being required to obtain a license from the board of dental examiners of Alabama." Acts 1915, p 923.
The act of 1915 was expressly repealed by an act found at page 148, Acts 1919. A later act of 1919 requires any person before practicing dentistry in this state to first obtain a certificate or license from the board of dental examiners of Alabama. Acts 1919, p. 784.
"It is a general rule *** that when a statute is repealed it stands as if it had never existed, except as to vested rights which have accrued under its operation." Blake v. State, 178 Ala. 407, 59 So. 623.
The Legislature has full power to take away by statute rights not vested, which have been conferred by statute. Luke v. Calhoun County, 56 Ala. 415.
The exemption promised in the act of 1915 did not constitute a contract which a subsequent Legislature could not repeal. Dunlap v. State, 76 Ala. 460. The question for decision is:
"Did a vested right to practice dentistry in Alabama accrue to the defendant under the operation of the act of 1915?"
A mere expectation based upon the continuance of the present general laws cannot be regarded as a vested right. Cooley's Const. Lim. 359.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pickett v. Matthews, 2 Div. 149.
... ... If there exists any ... such prohibition it must be found elsewhere in the ... Constitution ... Sections ... 1, 6, 22, State Constitution; Amendment 14, Federal ... Constitution, U.S.C.A.: ... These ... taken together guarantee the equal protection of the laws, ... accrued and vested. 11 Amer.Jur. 1200; 16 Corpus Juris ... Secundum Constitutional Law, p. 646, § 223; Samples v ... State, 19 Ala.App. 478, 98 So. 211, certiorari denied ... with opinion 210 Ala. 544, 98 So. 803 ... In this ... connection ... ...
-
McGregor v. McGregor
... ... But the limitation on that ... rule is that this cannot be done when to do so destroys a ... right which has vested under it. Blake v. State, 178 ... Ala. 407, 59 So. 623; Luke v. Calhoun County, 56 ... Ala. 415. See, also, First National Bank v. Jackson ... County, 227 Ala. 448, 150 ... 690; Ballenger v ... State Board, 234 Ala. 377, 176 So. 387; Samples v ... State, 19 Ala.App. 478, 98 So. 211, certiorari denied ... 210 Ala. 544, 98 So. 803 ... The ... limitation of section 272, supra, ... ...
-
Brady v. State Pilotage Com'n
..."A mere expectation based upon the continuance of the present general laws cannot be regarded as a vested right." Samples v. State, 19 Ala.App. 478, 98 So. 211 (1923), cert. denied, 210 Ala. 544, 98 So. 803 Brady, being the first applicant to comply with all the statutory requirements, was,......
-
Sanford v. State
...459, 461, 102 So. 693; Thompson v. State, 19 Ala. App. 328, 97 So. 258; Folmar v. State, 19 Ala. App. 435, 97 So. 768; Samples v. State, 19 Ala. App. 478, 480, 98 So. 211; McLosky v. State, 19 Ala. App. 544, 98 So. Jackson v. State, 19 Ala. App. 633, 99 So. 826. The indictment, under which ......