State ex rel. Feller v. State Board of Medical Examiners
| Decision Date | 24 December 1885 |
| Citation | 26 N.W. 125,34 Minn. 391 |
| Parties | State of Minnesota, ex rel. E. C. Feller, v. State Board of Medical Examiners |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Writ of prohibition.
Writ quashed.
C. D O'Brien, for relator.
William J. Hahn, Attorney General, and James M. Martin, for respondent.
This like the case of State v. State Board of Medical Examiners, ante, p. 387, is an application for a writ of prohibition to restrain the State Board of Medical Examiners from further action in proceedings instituted to revoke, on the ground of alleged unprofessional and dishonorable conduct, a certificate issued to relator entitling him to practise medicine. Laws 1883, c. 125, § 9. But, unlike that case, the only ground upon which the writ is asked for is that the facts stated in the information or complaint do not constitute "unprofessional or dishonorable" conduct, within the meaning of the statute. The respondent makes the point that, if true, this is no ground for issuing the writ; at least not until relator had first pleaded to the jurisdiction of the board, and his plea had been denied. It is unnecessary to decide this point, inasmuch as we are of opinion that the complaint or information is entirely sufficient. The argument of counsel for relator proceeds upon the assumption that all that is charged is a breach of a rule of professional ethics by simply publishing an advertisement of relator's business as a physician. But this is a mistake. The complaint sets out, in full, the advertisement in which relator, among other things, asserts to the public his ability to speedily cure all chronic, nervous, blood, and skin diseases of both sexes, also all diseases of the eye and ear without injurious drugs or hindrance from business all old, lingering constitutional diseases, where the blood is impure, causing ulcers, blotches, sore throat and mouth, pains in the head and bones, cured for life, etc. The complaint further charges that relator published this advertisement for the purpose of soliciting and procuring, wrongfully and fraudulently, patients to submit themselves to medical treatment by him; and that the statements therein contained are false, and that relator well knew them to be false when he made them, and that it was intended thereby to deceive the public and impose on the credulous and ignorant. The gist of this charge is, not that he advertised his business, nor merely...
To continue reading
Request your trial