State Bd. of Architectural and Engineering Examiners v. Blalock
| Decision Date | 09 June 1950 |
| Parties | , 190 Tenn. 626 STATE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING EXAMINERS v. BLALOCK. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
B. B. Gullett, Nashville, for appellant.
Atchley & Atchley, Chattanooga, for appellee.
On June 2, 1948, in the Chancery Court of Hamilton County, the State Board of Architectural and Engineering Examiners, which we shall refer to hereinafter as the Board, filed its original bill against the defendant, Roy E. Blalock, to enjoin him from practicing engineering on the ground that defendant had no license as required by §§ 7098-7112 of the Code of Tennessee. The defendant demurred to the bill, and before that pleading was disposed of, the Board filed an amended and supplemental bill by which it averred that the Board was created by Chapter 167 of the Public Acts of 1921, and that said Act contained a 'grandfather clause' which authorized the licensing of engineers who were then practicing at the time the Act was passed, provided application for such license was made within a year after the passage of the Act. The amended bill averred that the defendant did not come within the provisions of said 'grandfather clause,' and that he had neither applied for, nor received any license within the year after the passage of said Act. The defendant demurred to the bill as amended, and the Chancellor overruled that demurrer.
The defendant then answered the bill as amended, and in his answer set out the following defenses:
(a) That the Board did not come into equity with clean hands because of its refusal to obey the provisions of Chapter 175 of the Public Acts of 1937, and issue a license to the defendant.
(b) That the Board had been guilty of laches.
(c) That the bill as amended, attempted a collateral attack on Chapter 175 of the Public Acts of 1937.
(d) '* * * the defendant shows that for many years prior to the passage of the Legislative Act authorizing the formation of this board, and regulating the practice of engineering in the State of Tennessee, he had practiced the profession of engineering, and has a prescriptive right to practice the same, and that if he made application at some subsequent date to take the said examination, and took the same, or any part of it, which is not herein admitted, that the same was not necessary for him to have done, and he is advised, and on information and belief charges that regardless of the constitutionality of the Legislative Act complained of in the original bill he is entitled by prescription and property right to practice a profession which he was practicing long before the passage of the original regulatory act.'
At this point in the litigation, the State Attorney General filed an intervening petition in which he asserted that the Board's action in denying defendant a license had been based on a written opinion from the Attorney General that Chapter 175 of the Public Acts of 1937 was unconstitutional, and he then in the petition, asserted the unconstitutionality of that Act. In substance, the prayer of the intervening petition was that the defendant be served with process and a copy of the petition, and that Chapter 175 of the Public Acts of 1937 be declared unconstitutional. The petition was filed and process issued for the defendant. When process was returned 'not to be found' motion was made and granted that the prayer of the petition asking for process, be stricken, and that the cause be heard on the pleadings. Such hearing was equivalent to a hearing on bill and answer. The pertinent parts of the decree entered at that hearing are as follows:
'This cause came on to be heard before the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Owens v. State
...833 (1957); City of Greenfield v. Callins, 195 Tenn. 285, 287, 259 S.W.2d 525 (1953); State Board of Architectural & Engineering Examiners v. Blalock, 190 Tenn. 626, 631 231 S.W.2d 326 (1950); State ex rel. Loser v. National Optical Stores Co., 189 Tenn. 433, 444, 225 S.W.2d 263 (1949); Hay......
-
Haynes v. City of Pigeon Forge
...833 (1958); City of Greenfield v. Callins, 195 Tenn. 285, 287, 259 S.W.2d 525 (1953); State Board of Architectural & Engineering Examiners v. Blalock, 190 Tenn. 626, 631, 231 S.W.2d 326 (1950); State ex rel. Loser v. National Optical Stores Co., 189 Tenn. 433, 444, 225 S.W.2d 263 (1949); Ba......
-
Watts v. Memphis Transit Management Co.
...issue. State ex rel. Loser v. National Optical Stores Co. (1949), 189 Tenn. 433, 225 S.W.2d 263; State Board of Architectural, etc. v. Blalock (1950), 190 Tenn. 626, 231 S.W.2d 326; State ex rel. West v. Kivett (1957), 203 Tenn. 49, 308 S.W.2d To again reiterate, the 'except' clause of § 23......