State Ex Rel. Morris v. West Va. Racing Comm'n
Decision Date | 28 July 1949 |
Docket Number | No. 10181.,10181. |
Citation | 55 S.E.2d 263 |
Parties | STATE ex rel. MORRIS. v. WEST VIRGINIA RACING COMMISSION. |
Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
A proceeding in mandamus was instituted by the State of West Virginia on the relation of Elsie S. Morris for an order requiring the West Virginia Racing Commission to reinstate the relator's racing license.
The Supreme Court of Appeals, Fox, J., denied the writ holding that the grant of power to the Racing Commission to regulate horse racing was a valid delegation of legislative power and the rule of the Commission promulgated pursuant thereto making a trainer an insurer of the condition of a horse entered in a race regardless of any acts of third persons and providing for his suspension if stimulants or drugs are found in horse, was a valid exercise of the state's police power.
Rule No. 248, framed and promulgated by the West Virginia Racing Commission, under the power of regulation granted to it by the Legislature of this State, by Chapter 71, Acts of the Legislature, 1935, and which rule reads as follows:
"Any urine test may be taken of any horse or horses that the Stewards may ask the Veterinarians in charge to take and have analyzed, and if found positive, the responsible person so offending shall be suspended for not less than six (6) months and the case referred to the West Virginia Racing Commission for any further action deemed necessary", is a valid exercise of the police power of the State, as related to horse racing over which the State has assumed control, legally delegated to such Racing Commission by the Legislature, and is not violative of any provision of the State or Federal Constitutions.
James M. Mason, III, Charles Town, for petitioner.
Ira J. Partlow, Atty. Gen., Thomas J. Gillooly, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendants.
This proceeding in mandamus, in which the original jurisdiction of this Court is invoked, involves the validity of certain rules and regulations in respect to horse racing in this State, as the same may be conducted under the provisions of Chapter 71, Acts of the Legislature, 1935, as amended by Chapter 158 of said Acts, 1947, and as promulgated by the West Virginia Racing Commission, created by the original act, and in force and effect in the month of April, 1949, during which month there occurred the events with which this proceeding is concerned. In this opinion we will deal only with the Act of 1935, as the 1947 Amendments thereto do not cover any question here involved.
By Section 1 of the 1935 Act, aforesaid, there was created the West Virginia Racing Commission, hereafter referred to as "Racing Commission", with the provisions that it should be a corporation, with power, as such, to contract and be contracted with, and to consist of three members to be appointed by the Governor, by and with the consent of the Senate. The section then provides:
Section 11 of the Act provides:
"The commission may license jockeys, trainers and grooms, register colors, assumed names, apprentice contracts, authorized agents, and charge a fee therefor. * * *"
Acting under the general authority aforesaid, the Racing Commission adopted and promulgated certain rules governing the conduct of horse racing under the act, to which all persons desiring to race horses were required to subscribe, as a prerequisite to the granting of any license or privilege therefor. The general purpose of the act was to legalize horse racing under what is known as the pari-mutuel system, to be conducted under the supervision and control of the State through the Racing Commission created by the act. These regulations were very broad and comprehensive, and presumably covered every feature of horse racing permitted under the act. Here we are only concerned with such rules so far as they pertain to fraudulent and corrupt practices. Under the heading "Corrupt Practices" Rules Nos. 245, 246, 247, 247-A, 248, 249 and 249-A were so adopted and promulgated and they read as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Quesenberry v. Estep
...and commissions. The City of Huntington v. State Water Commission, 137 W.Va. 786, 73 S.E.2d 833; State ex rel. Morris v. The West Virginia Racing Commission, 133 W.Va. 179, 55 S.E.2d 263; Hayes v. The Town of Cedar Grove, 126 W.Va. 828, 30 S.E.2d 726, 156 A.L.R. 702; State v. Bunner, 126 W.......
-
State ex rel. Perry v. Miller
...power in the protection of public health and safety, precise legislative guidelines are not required. In State v. West Virginia Racing Commission, 133 W.Va. 179, 55 S.E.2d 263 (1949), we considered the situation where the Legislature had delegated broad authority to the West Virginia Racing......
-
Stupak-Thrall v. U.S.
...by constitutional authority, or natural right ... in effect, is unlimited.' ") (quoting State ex rel. Morris v. West Virginia Racing Comm'n, 133 W.Va. 179, 55 S.E.2d 263, 270 (1949)). Under Michigan's police power, the state can demolish your house or burn it to prevent the spread of plague......
-
MARYLAND RACING COMMISSION v. Belotti
...Horse Racing Bd., 31 Cal.2d 401, 189 P.2d 17, cert. denied, 335 U.S. 814, 69 S.Ct. 31, 93 L.Ed. 369 (1948), and State v. West Virginia Racing Comm'n, 133 W.Va. 179, 55 S.E.2d 263). The Court of Appeals noted that those decisions "find support in many instances where responsibility or liabil......