State v. Clark
Decision Date | 02 October 1928 |
Docket Number | No. 2873a.,2873a. |
Citation | 9 S.W.2d 635 |
Parties | STATE ex rel. HORTON v. CLARK et al. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Robert W. Hall, Judge.
Certiorari by the State, on the relation of Ray Beaman Horton, against Dr. W. A. Clark and others, composing the State Board of Health. Judgment for relator, and respondents appeal. Reversed.
See, also, 293 S. W. 362.
North T. Gentry, Atty. Gen., A. B. Lovan, Asst. Atty. Gen. (J. Henry Caruthers, of St. Louis, of counsel), for appellants.
Fred W. Coon and C. S. Walden, both of Kansas City, for respondent.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the circuit court of the city of St. Louis quashing the proceedings of the state board of health, brought there for review by writ of certiorari in the matter of a complaint filed against relator, Ray Beaman Horton, and ordering said board to restore his licence to practice medicine and surgery in the state of Missouri.
Respondent insists that no appeal lies to the Supreme Court from said judgment of the circuit court of the city of St. Louis. While we have held that the state board of health is not a court or judicial body (State ex rel. v. Goodier, 195 Mo. 551, 93 S. W. 928) yet, when relator availed himself, of the right of review given by section 7336, R. S. 1919, and filed his petition in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis for a writ of certiorari against the members of the state board of health, that proceeding was a "case" within the meaning of section 12, art. 6, of the Constitution, and, as respondents are state officers within the meaning of said section, an appeal from the decision of the trial court in the certiorari proceeding properly goes to the Supreme Court. Section 5, Amendment of 1884 to article 6 of the Constitution; State ex rel. v. Springer, 134 Mo. 212, loc. cit. 221, 35 S. W. 589; State ex rel. v. Nortoni, 201 Mo. loc. cit. 26, 98 S. W. 554, quoting from State ex rel. Blakemore v. Rombauer, 101 Mo. 499, 14 S. W. 726; Farber v. Shot, 304 Mo. 523, loc. cit. 528, 533, 263 S. W. 804.
Preliminary to further consideration of this appeal, we shall here briefly summarize the proceedings prior thereto. The original complaint was filed with the state board of health June 9, 1925, Horton was duly notified, and a hearing was set for September 17, 1925. Thereupon the said Horton filed a petition for injunction against said state board of health in the circuit court of Cole county, Mo. A temporary restraining order was issued, which was thereafter dissolved, and judgment was finally rendered in said court in favor of the state board of health. Petitioner appealed therefrom to the Supreme Court of this state, where the judgment was affirmed. Horton v. Clark et al., 316 Mo. 770, 293 S. W. 362. Thereafter, on March 22, 1927, the following amended complaint was filed against the said Horton in the office of the secretary of the state board of health of Missouri:
On April 23, 1927, the said Horton was duly notified of the filing of this amended complaint, served with a copy thereof, and notified to appear before said board for a hearing thereon May 25, 1927. Pursuant to said notice the said Horton appeared in person and by counsel before said board of health, a hearing upon said amended complaint was had, and on May 27, 1927, the said state board of health revoked his license to practice medicine and surgery in the state of Missouri. Thereafter, on June 11, 1927, relator filed his petition in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis as aforesaid. The writ was issued, and respondents filed return tendering a true and correct copy of the record of the proceedings and all the evidence had before the state board of health in said matter. Relator thereupon filed motion to quash the proceedings of the state board of health in said matter, which motion was by the court sustained and said board was ordered to restore relator's license to practice medicine in the state of Missouri. From the judgment rendered respondents duly appealed.
Authority for the issuance of a writ of certiorari against the members of the state board of health thus appears in section 7336, R. S. 1919:
A common-law writ of certiorari only brings up the record, and can only reach defects or errors in the proceedings of the tribunal to which it is issued which appear upon the face of the record and go to the jurisdiction of that tribunal. The evidence is no part of the record, and it is not the office of such writ to bring up the evidence for review. Hannibal & St. Joe R. Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 64 Mo. 294, loc. cit. 308. However, the writ of certiorari contemplated by above section 7336 is somewhat broader than the common-law writ, for it specifically provides that:
The writ "shall command the said board and the secretary thereof to certify to said court the record and proceedings of said board, and a complete transcript thereof, and of all the evidence therein pertaining to the revocation of said license."
The broad scope of this statutory proceeding is further indicated by the provision that:
"Any person whose license has been or shall be revoked by the board shall have the right to have the proceedings of said board revoking his license and all the evidence therein reviewed, on a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gaddy v. State Bd. of Registration for Healing Arts
...179; Moore v. Rone, Mo.App., 355 S.W.2d 398, 401; Steckler v. Steckler, Mo.App., 293 S.W.2d 129, 131.3 See State ex rel. Horton v. Clark, 320 Mo. 1190, 1199, 9 S.W.2d 635, 639; Horton v. Clark, 316 Mo. 770, 779, 293 S.W. 362, 365(9); State ex rel. McAnally v. Goodier, 195 Mo. 551, 559, 93 S......
-
State ex rel. Schneider v. Bourke
... ... Reynolds, 209 ... S.W. 100; Hambleton v. Dexter, 89 Mo. 188. (2) ... Mandamus will not lie. (a) Because there is an appropriate ... remedy at law available. Sec. 9120, R. S. 1929; State ex ... rel. Lentine v. State Board of Health, 65 S.W.2d 943; 38 ... C. J. 558; State ex rel. Clark v. Smith, 104 Mo ... 661. Rule not changed by expiration of time limit for ... application for legal remedy. State ex rel. v ... McKee, 150 Mo. 233. Under petition, legal remedy still ... available. State ex rel. Kerr v. Landwehr, 32 S.W.2d ... 83. Facts asserted authorize statutory review, ... ...
-
Bittiker v. State Bd. of Registration for Healing Arts
...of discretion, is within the scope of the exercise of a reasonable discretion, it will not be interferred with.' State ex rel. Horton v. Clark, 320 Mo. 1190, 9 S.W.2d 635, 638. These statements were approved in State ex rel. Lentine v. State Board of Health, 334 Mo. 220, 65 S.W.2d 943, 950,......
-
Withers v. Golding
... ... Action ... by W. L. Withers and others against S.W. Golding, Director of ... the Department of Registration of the state of Utah, and ... another, to review an order revoking the plaintiff's ... license to practice dentistry in the state of Utah. From a ... judgment ... State Board of Dentistry v. Shattuck , 261 Mich ... 375, 246 N.W. 153; State v. Jensen , 205 ... Minn. 410, 286 N.W. 305; State v. Clark , ... 320 Mo. 1190, 9 S.W.2d 635; In re Reno , 57 Nev. 314, ... 64 P.2d 1036; Board of Medical Examiners v ... Carroll , 194 N.C. 37, 138 ... ...