Schuhknecht v. State Plumbing Bd. of Mich., Motion No. 68.

• Decision Date: 05 October 1936
• Docket Number: Motion No. 68.
• Citation: 277 Mich. 183,269 N.W. 136
• Parties: SCHUHKNECHT v. STATE PLUMBING BOARD OF MICHIGAN.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

277 Mich. 183

269 N.W. 136

SCHUHKNECHT

v.STATE PLUMBING BOARD OF MICHIGAN.

Motion No. 68.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Oct. 5, 1936.

Mandamus by Fred C. Schuhknecht against the State Plumbing Board to require respondent to issue to petitioner a renewal of his license as a master plumber.

Decision in accordance with opinion.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Berrien County.

Argued before the Entire Bench, except POTTER, J.

Myron H. Wolcott, of St. Joseph, for petitioner.

David H. Crowley, Atty. Gen., and Edmund E. Shepherd and Weston L. Sheldon, Asst. Attys. Gen., for defendant.

WIEST, Justice.

Petitioner seeks, by mandamus, to require the State Plumbing Board to issue to him a renewal of his license as a master plumber.

In 1933 and 1934 petitioner was a duly licensed master plumber. Licenses are annual and expire on the last day of the year but may be renewed as later set forth. Petitioner did not ask for renewal of his license for the year 1935, because of ill health and financial distress, but, in 1936, he desired to resume his vocation and, on April 16, through his attorney, tendered the board an application fee of $25 and asked for a renewal license. The request was refused on the ground that petitioner had not, during January or February of 1935, applied for a renewal license and paid the fee.

In behalf of the board it is contended that petitioner's 1934 license expired on the 31st day of December, 1934, and was automatically canceled on March 1, 1935, by reason of his failure to apply for a renewal and pay the fee during January or February of 1935, and that a new application must be filed by him and an examination taken.

Counsel agree that the question of law is as follows: ‘May the petitioner under the provisions of Act No. 260 of the Public Acts of 1933, effective October 17, 1933, renew his master plumber's license for 1936, or is he required to make a new application for a 1936 license and take the regular master plumber's examination?’

We quote the relevant provisions of the mentioned statute.

Section 5 provides: ‘* * * The plumbing board shall prescribe reasonable rules and regulations as to the qualifications, examination and licensing of applicants, and for the registration of plumbers' apprentices. Any person heretofore not required to be licensed and who on March one, nineteen hundred twenty-nine, was engaged in or worked at the business of master plumber or journeyman plumber and who is required to be licensed under this act, shall, upon furnishing the commissioner with satisfactory evidence of having been so engaged on said date, and of having the necessary qualifications, shall be granted a master plumber's or a journeyman plumber's license without examination, provided he makes application therefor prior to January one, nineteen hundred thirty, and pays the prescribed examination fee. * * *’

Section 8 provides: ‘Application for a plumber's license must be made to the plumbing board, with the fee herein prescribed. Unless the applicant is entitled to renewal license, he shall be licensed only after passing a...