State v. Johnson., No. 2346.
| Docket Nº | No. 2346. |
| Citation | 188 P. 1109, 26 N.M. 20 |
| Case Date | February 28, 1920 |
| Court | Supreme Court of New Mexico |
26 N.M. 20
188 P. 1109
STATE
v.
JOHNSON.
Supreme Court of New Mexico.
Feb. 28, 1920.
Practicing osteopathy or medicine without the license required by law is not a nuisance per se.
In an action to enjoin one from practicing osteopathy and medicine without a license, the averments that such practice constitutes a nuisance and is greatly detrimental, dangerous and injurious to the health of the public, are statements of conclusions and not facts, and for that reason the complaint held not to state facts sufficient to state a cause of action.
Appeal from District Court, Bernalillo County; H. F. Raynolds, Judge.
Action by State of New Mexico against W. L. Johnson. Judgment for defendant on demurrer to complaint, and the State appeals. Affirmed.
In an action to enjoin one from practicing osteopathy and medicine without a license, the averments that such practice constitutes a nuisance and is greatly detrimental, dangerous and injurious to the health of the public, are statements of conclusions and not facts, and for that reason the complaint held not to state facts sufficient to state a cause of action.
[188 P. 1110] George R. Craig, Dist. Atty., and Geo. C. Taylor, both of Albuquerque, for the State.
Isaac Barth and T. J. Mabry, both of Albuquerque, for appellee.
MERRITT C. MECHEM, District Judge.
The state of New Mexico brings this action to enjoin one W. L. Johnson from the practice of osteopathy and medicine without having a license. The complaint is in two counts. By the first it is charged that W. L. Johnson was engaged in practicing osteopathy in the county of Bernalillo without having first obtained a license as required by law, and that such practice constitutes a nuisance, and is dangerous, detrimental, and injurious to the health of the inhabitants of the county of Bernalillo and state of New Mexico. The second count is the same as the first in all respects except that it is charged that the defendant is engaged in the practice of medicine without having first obtained a license as required by law. To the complaint the defendant demurred on the ground that the complaint failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
[1][2] Our Code provides that complaints must contain “a statement of the facts constituting the cause of action, in ordinary and concise language.” Section 4104, Codification 1915. Examining the complaint, we find but one fact stated, viz. the practice of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Eckdahl v. Hurwitz, 2153
...or will amount to a public nuisance. State ex rel. La Prade v. Smith (Ariz.) 43 Ariz. 131, 29 P.2d 718, 92 A. L. R. 168; State v. Johnson, 26 N.M. 20, 188 P. 1109. The facts here do not show a situation for the application of the exception to the rule." Our sister State of Colorado, through......
-
State Ex Rel. Marron v. Compere., No. 4525.
...of this present kind.” The defendant insists the trial court's action is fully sustained by the decision of this court in State v. Johnson, 26 N.M. 20, 188 P. 1109, 1110. If so, we may make quick disposition of the appeal by so stating and direct an affirmance with that case as a precedent.......
-
State v. Davis, No. 6413
...in this instance the state must plead and prove that the act does in fact have an adverse effect on the general public, State v. Johnson, 26 N.M. 20, 188 P. According to the Compare case, supra, the state cannot obtain an injunction simply because certain conduct is a crime, so we must asce......
-
Takiguchi v. State, Civil 3665
...or will amount to a public nuisance. State ex rel. La Prade v. Smith, 43 Ariz. 131, 343, 29 P.2d 718, 92 A.L.R. 168; State v. Johnson, 26 N.M. 20, 188 P. 1109. The facts here do not show a situation for the application of the exception to the rule. It must be admitted that the remedies pres......
-
Eckdahl v. Hurwitz, 2153
...or will amount to a public nuisance. State ex rel. La Prade v. Smith (Ariz.) 43 Ariz. 131, 29 P.2d 718, 92 A. L. R. 168; State v. Johnson, 26 N.M. 20, 188 P. 1109. The facts here do not show a situation for the application of the exception to the rule." Our sister State of Colorado, through......
-
State Ex Rel. Marron v. Compere., No. 4525.
...of this present kind.” The defendant insists the trial court's action is fully sustained by the decision of this court in State v. Johnson, 26 N.M. 20, 188 P. 1109, 1110. If so, we may make quick disposition of the appeal by so stating and direct an affirmance with that case as a precedent.......
-
State v. Davis, No. 6413
...in this instance the state must plead and prove that the act does in fact have an adverse effect on the general public, State v. Johnson, 26 N.M. 20, 188 P. According to the Compare case, supra, the state cannot obtain an injunction simply because certain conduct is a crime, so we must asce......
-
Takiguchi v. State, Civil 3665
...or will amount to a public nuisance. State ex rel. La Prade v. Smith, 43 Ariz. 131, 343, 29 P.2d 718, 92 A.L.R. 168; State v. Johnson, 26 N.M. 20, 188 P. 1109. The facts here do not show a situation for the application of the exception to the rule. It must be admitted that the remedies pres......