State v. Hathaway

Decision Date12 October 1891
Citation17 S.W. 299,106 Mo. 236
PartiesSTATE v. HATHAWAY.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Appeal from Buchanan criminal court; SILAS WOODSON, Judge.

J. N. Hathaway was indicted for practicing medicine without having his certificate from the board of health recorded. Defendant was convicted, and appeals. Reversed.

C. M. Napton and H. S. Kelley, for appellant. The Attorney General and W. E. Sherwood, for the State.

GANTT, P. J.

This cause was certified to this court for determination by the Kansas City court of appeals, for the reason that in the decision thereof a constitutional question is involved. The defendant was indicted by the grand jury of Buchanan county at the June term, 1889. The indictment is as follows: "The grand jurors of the state of Missouri, within and for the body of the county of Buchanan aforesaid, being duly impaneled and sworn, upon their oaths do present that J. N. Hathaway, on the 1st day of July, 1889, at the county of Buchanan and state aforesaid, did then and there unlawfully, by being a practitioner and doctor of medicine and surgery, and engaged in said business and profession, and by publicly professing to be a physician and surgeon aforesaid, and to prescribe for the sick for compensation, and by appending to his name the letters `M. D.,' and was not at the time aforesaid a student prescribing under the supervision of a preceptor, or engaged at the time in rendering gratuitous services in cases of emergency, or professing so to do, and was not at the time aforesaid a commissioned surgeon in the United States army, navy, and marine hospital service, and was not a physician and surgeon as aforesaid, nor a practicing physician and surgeon as aforesaid, in this state, for five years next before the 2d day of April, 1883, nor for four years next before the said 2d day of April, 1883, without first having filed for record in the office of the county clerk of said county, in the book kept in the office of the clerk of the county court of said county for that purpose, a certificate from the state board of health authorizing the said J. N. Hathaway to so practice medicine and surgery, or either, as aforesaid, in said county, the county in which the said J. N. Hathaway resides, and did reside during the time aforesaid, and pursues said...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • The State ex rel. Crandall v. McIntosh
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 2 Julio 1907
    ... ... 521; Simmons v. State, 12 Mo ... 268; Austin v. State, 10 Mo. 591; Dent v. West ... Virginia, 129 U.S. 114; Hays v. Missouri, 120 ... U.S. 68; Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U.S. 32; Cooley on ... Torts, pp. 289, 290; Tiedeman on Police Power, secs. 87, 88; ... State v. Hathaway, 115 Mo. 36. (3) As a general rule ... a writ of mandamus will not issue where the right of the ... relator depends on holding an act of the Legislature ... unconstitutional. 19 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law (2 Ed.), 763; ... Davis v. San Francisco, 63 Cal. 581; Wright v ... Kelley, 43 P. 565; ... ...
  • State v. McIntosh
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 2 Julio 1907
    ...192 Mo., loc. cit. 730, 91 S. W. 491. Burgess, J., in the Seebold Case, cites, as sustaining the same proposition, State v. Hathaway, 106 Mo. 236, 17 S. W. 299, where this court refused to pass on the constitutionality of a law when the point was raised on an insufficient indictment, saying......
  • Smith v. Hendricks
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 26 Diciembre 1939
    ...interest in the matter must be shown by plaintiffs before the courts will enter into an investigation of that question. State v. Hathaway, 106 Mo. 236 . `Injury, material and actual, not fanciful, theoretical or merely possible, must be shown as the necessary or probable results of the acti......
  • The State v. Burke
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 26 Junio 1899
    ...indictment to deal with that does not so closely resemble the condition of the earth when it "was without form and void." [State v. Hathaway, 106 Mo. 236, 17 S.W. 299, other cases.] As the result of the foregoing views, we reverse the judgment and discharge the defendants. All concur. ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT