State v. Bailey Dental Co.
Decision Date | 13 January 1931 |
Docket Number | No. 40706.,40706. |
Parties | STATE v. BAILEY DENTAL CO. |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Polk County; W. G. Bonner, Judge.
Suit in equity brought under the provisions of section 2519 of the Code, to enjoin the defendant corporation from practicing dentistry in this state on the ground that it has no license therefor. Upon trial had in the district court, decree of injunction was entered, and the defendants have appealed.
Affirmed.Wm. Baird & Sons, of Omaha, Neb., and George A. Wilson, of Des Moines, for appellant.
John Fletcher, Atty. Gen., and Gerald Blake, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The defendant was organized as a domestic corporation on October 1, 1913, for the purpose of carrying on the business in which it is now engaged, and obtained a franchise therefor from the secretary of state. It was organized under the name appearing in the caption herein. Its incorporators and only stockholders were R. W. Bailey and G. D. Shipherd, and these constituted its officials. Its present officials are Shipherd, Bedell, and Ruder. The facts were stipulated into the record in the court below. The material facts thus stipulated are summarized in the appellant's brief as follows:
“1. The defendant company was incorporated under the laws of Iowa in 1913 for the purpose of equipping and maintaining offices and places where lawfully licensed dentists might carry on the practice of dentistry.
2. Defendant has offices located at Fifth and Locust Streets in Des Moines, Iowa, which offices are maintained under the name of Bailey Dental Company, and in which offices dentistry is practiced, and which offices are supervised and managed by a licensed dentist and other licensed dentists are employed therein.
3. Some of the advertisements which have been put out to the public by the defendant have read
4. Licensed dentists employed in said offices have been and are treating defects or diseases of the teeth, gums, or maxillary bones.
5. Neither the defendant company nor any of its officers have ever been licensed to practice dentistry in Iowa but each and every one of the aforementioned employees have been and are now licensed to practice dentistry under the laws of Iowa.
6. The names of the employed dentists have been and are displayed in a conspicuous place at the public entrance of the office, as required by section 2568.
7. The Articles of Incorporation of defendant company were duly filed with the Secretary of State of Iowa on October 1, 1913, accepted by him, and certificate of incorporation duly issued to it. Said Articles provide that said company should have power to establish, equip, and maintain offices and places where competent and lawfully licensed dentists may carry on the practice of dentistry in the State of Iowa, which business shall be carried on under the provisions and in conformity with the laws of the State of Iowa; that since then defendant company has maintained and operated offices in Des Moines, Iowa, under its own name of Bailey Dental Company, in which licensed dentists employed by it have been and are now practicing dentistry, and has expended and invested large sums of money in building up its business and establishing and equipping its present offices, and that the same are of value in excess of $25,000.00.”
The theory of defense is concisely stated in the same brief as follows:
“1. There is no evidence that defendant is practicing dentistry.
2. The sole business of defendant is owning and operating offices in which the art of dentistry is practiced by duly licensed dentists, as authorized by its Articles.
3. The Practice of Dentistry, and the owning and operating of dental offices where dentistry is practiced, are two distinct functions, and the provisions of the ‘Practice of Dentistry Act’ in question are of necessity and as contemplated by the law itself limited to human persons engaged in the practice of dentistry as defined, that is, physically treating the oral cavity.
4. The decree denies to this defendant equal protection under the laws and deprives it of its valuable property without due process of law and without just compensation therefor, in violation of the rights of this defendant under the Constitutions of the United States of America and of the State of Iowa.”
The statutes material for our consideration provide as follows:
“2565. For the purpose of this title the following classes of persons shall be deemed to be engaged in the practice of dentistry:
1. Persons publicly professing to be dentists, dental surgeons, or skilled in the science of dentistry, or publicly professing to assume the duties incident to the practice of dentistry.”
[1] 1. Defendant's first contention is that it is not practicing dentistry....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bartron v. Codington County
... ... for gain by a corporation prohibited by statute? That in the exercise of police powers of the state the Legislature can prohibit [68 SD 316] corporations from engaging in the business of supplying ... John H. Woodbury Dermatological Institute, 192 NY 454, 85 NE 697; State v. Bailey Dental Co., 211 Iowa 781, 234 NW 260; People v. Painless Parker Dentist, 85 Colo. 304, 275 P. 928; ... ...
-
Christensen v. Des Moines Still College of Osteopathy and Surgery
... ... It relies upon our decision in State v. Kindy Optical Co., 216 Iowa 1157, 248 N.W. 332, as authority for the proposition that a ... Des Moines Still College of Osteopathy and Surgery, Iowa, 79 N.W.2d 306; State v. Bailey Dental Co., 211 Iowa 781, 234 N.W. 260; State v. Fremont Co-op. Burial Ass'n, 222 Iowa 949, 270 ... ...
-
Worlton v. Davis
... ... , all of said co-partners being duly license- and practicing physicians and surgeons in the State of Idaho except said Clyde C. Hulse, who was the business manager of said partnership, and ... State v. Boren, 36 Wash.2d 522, 219 P.2d 566, 20 A.L.R.2d 798; State v. Bailey Dental Co., 211 Iowa 781, 234 N.W. 260; People v. Painless Parker Dentist, 85 Colo. 304, 275 P ... ...
- State v. Williams