Spindel v. Jamison

Decision Date28 April 1958
Docket NumberNo. 4807,4807
Citation199 Va. 954,103 S.E.2d 205
CourtVirginia Supreme Court
PartiesGILBERT DONALD SPINDEL v. JOHN S. JAMISON, ET AL., ETC. Record

Robert G. Doumar and Edward T. Caton, III, for the appellant.

Frederick T. Gray, Special Assistant Attorney General (A. S. Harrison, Jr., Attorney General; Thomas M. Miller, Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for the appellees.

JUDGE: HUDGINS

HUDGINS, C.J., delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal from a decree affirming an order of the Virginia State Board for the Examination and Certification of Architects, Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors, hereinafter designated Board denying the application of Gilbert Donald Spindel, hereinafter designated applicant, for a certificate of resignation as a professional engineer.

The pertinent facts are not in dispute and are as follows: On January 22, 1954, applicant filed with the Board his application for a certificate of registration as a professional engineer. In his application he stated that he was a registered engineer under the laws of the District of Columbia, that he had never passed a written examination and was not registered in any other state. It also appears from the application that since January, 1930, applicant has been practicing engineering in various capacities with numerous employers, including the Western Union Telegraph Company, the United States Navy Yard, Brooklyn, New York, and the United States Army Corps of Engineers which awarded him a meritorious emblem for his engineering work. He has also written and published two books on engineering and designing of homes.

On receipt of his application the Board made inquiries as to the qualifications of the applicant and ascertained that he had been granted a certificate in the District of Columbia under a 'grandfather clause,' and without examination by, or appearance before, the Board in that jurisdiction. Applicant was notified by the Board that his application had been approved subject to his passing an oral examination, and two dates were fixed for his appearance and examination. On each occasion he asked for a continuance which was granted, extending the application for a period of approximately one year. Subsequent to January 22, 1954, applicant filed a supplemental application in which he stated that he had been registered as a professional engineer in South Carolina and Georgia, and held a certificate, number 1790, issued by the National Bureau of Engineering Registration.

On June 3, 1955, the Board wrote applicant a letter stating that he would be given an oral examination at 3:30 p.m., June 23, 1955, Thornton Hall, University of Virginia. In the letter applicant was informed that:

'In taking the oral examination the applicants must appear before the Board and submit documentary evidence substantiating the experience record which he has submitted in his application. Documentary evidence required consists of plans, specifications, designs and other documents which can be clearly identified as the work of the applicant, which will show clearly the nature of the scope of the work, as well as the applicant's degree of responsibility. Letters of recommendation may be submitted at the oral examination. It is the responsibility of the applicant to furnish such evidence for the Board to reach a decision.

'In case documentary evidence furnished is not sufficient, a written examination will be required at a future meeting of the Board. * * * If for any reason you are unable to appear at the scheduled time, please notify this office by return mail. * * * P.S. It is requested that you be prepared to exhibit your ability to make various types of calculations required by a Civil Engineer.'

Pursuant to this notice applicant with his attorney appeared before the Board in Charlottesville, but refused to answer any technical questions or to explain the plans and designs he claimed to have made for a simple building in Portsmouth. In the formal hearing held later, a member of the Board stated that applicant 'lists practically everything that could be done by a civil engineer, but yet when we had our oral interview he never answered the first technical question, and the exhibits that he brought to explain, to show to us, was a building in Portsmouth, a very simple building, and he couldn't explain how that was designed. * * * In the afternoon he started out answering and never gave a reasonable answer. At night he refused to answer * * *.' Thereafter, the Board notified applicant that his failure or refusal to answer questions on oral examination necessitated his taking a written examination which it would give him on December 3, 1955. On his failure to appear or to take the written examination, his application was denied.

Applicant, under the provisions of Code, § 9-6.10, demanded, and the Board gave him, a formal hearing on his application for registration. At this hearing the evidence heretofore stated was introduced and transcribed. Applicant contended that it was the mandatory duty of the Board, under Code, § 54-35, to issue him a certificate of registration as a professional engineer, without any examination, oral or written, as to his professional ability and qualifications. The Board rejected this contention and entered an order refusing to issue applicant a certificate as a professional engineer. From a decree of the lower court affirming the order of the Board, applicant obtained this appeal.

The decisive question presented is whether the Board is required by Code, § 54-35 to issue applicant a certificate of registration as a professional engineer, on the sole ground that he holds certificates of registration as a professional engineer granted him in other jurisdictions.

Code, § 54-35 provides that: 'The Board may upon application therefor on prescribed form and the payment of a fee of twenty-five dollars, issue a certificate of registration as an architect or as a professional engineer, or as a land surveyor, to any person who holds a like unexpired certificate of registration issued to him by proper authority in the District of Columbia, in any state or territory of the United States, or in any province of Canada, in which the requirements for the registration of architects, professional engineers or land surveyors are of a standard satisfactory to the Board; provided, however, that reciprocal privileges be granted to citizens of this State.' (Italics supplied).

It will be noted that the italicized language of the statute is prima facie permissive and not mandatory. In construing statutes, words used should be given their ordinary meaning, unless it is apparent that the legislature intended they should receive a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • Hawkins v. Moss
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • September 18, 1974
    ...(1970) 22 Ohio Misc. 138, 259 N.E.2d 167 (chiropractors); Mercer v. Hemmings (1967) Fla., 194 So.2d 579 (accountants); Spindel v. Jamison, supra (103 S.E.2d 205) (professional engineers); People v. Griswold (1914) 213 N.Y. 92, 106 N.E. 929 (dentists); Bloom v. Mo. Board of Architects, Profe......
  • Fairfax v. CBS Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • June 23, 2021
    ...word ‘may,’ as opposed to ‘shall’ ... evidences ... discretion to grant or refuse the defendant's motion ...."); Spindel v. Jamison , 199 Va. 954, 103 S.E.2d 205, 208 (1958) ("The word ‘may’ should not be construed to mean ‘must’ or ‘shall,’ unless the clear intention of the legislature dem......
  • Brown v. Supreme Court of Virginia
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • June 5, 1973
    ...as a professional engineer, Virginia has had occasion to consider the permissiveness granted under reciprocity in Spindel v. Jamison, 199 Va. 954, 103 S.E.2d 205 (1958). There is no vested right imposed by law. In Mercer v. Hemmings, (Fla.) 194 So.2d 579, 582, it was held that out-of-state ......
  • Mercer v. Hemmings
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • November 23, 1966
    ...because he held certificate of registration granted him by proper authorities in another jurisdiction.' Also see Spindel v. Jamison (1958), 199 Va. 954, 103 S.E.2d 205, 208. Thus, it is apparent that the reciprocal certificates as outlined in the quoted statute are 'privileges', as distingu......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT