State v. Pitet

Citation69 Wyo. 478,243 P.2d 177
Decision Date16 April 1952
Docket NumberNo. 2527,2527
PartiesSTATE, v. PITET.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Wyoming

H. S. Harnsberger, Atty. Gen., Howard B. Black, Deputy Atty. Gen., Paul T. Liamos, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiff.

R. G. Diefenderfer, John F. Raper, Sheridan, for defendant.

ILSLEY, Justice.

The defendant, Marcel R. Pitet, was charged in five counts in an Information filed in the District Court of Sheridan County with the unlawful practice of medicine as defined in Sec. 37-2007, Wyoming Compiled Statutes 1945 and without having first received and recorded a certificate from the State Board of Medical Examiners as provided by Sec. 37-2014, W.C.S.1945.

Whereupon the defendant demurred to each and every count in the Information upon the ground that his actions did not constitute an offense punishable by the laws of this State for the following reasons: That Sections 37-2007 and 37-2014, W.C.S.1945 are void, because: Sec. 37-2014, W.C.S.1945 was first enacted as Sec. 14 of Chapter 18 Session Laws of Wyo.1899; that as such it was published as Sec. 2202 in Chapter 5, Division 1, Title XVI Revised Statutes of Wyoming 1899; thereafter by Sec. 14, Chapter 45, Session Laws of Wyoming 1905, an attempt was made to amend said Sec. 2202 to read as set forth in the chapter; then said section was compiled as Sec. 2878, Wyoming Compiled Statutes 1910, and as Sec. 3526, Wyoming Compiled Statutes 1920 but thereafter it was amended and re-enacted as Sec. 5 of Chapter 126, Session Laws of 1925, and which was compiled as Sec. 86-114, Wyoming Revised Statutes 1931; that as such Sec. 86-114 it was again amended and re-enacted in Sec. 1, Chapter 24, Session Laws of 1933 to read as it now appears as Sec. 37-2014, Wyoming Compiled Statutes 1945.

Defendant Pitet contends that the attempted amendment and re-enactment of this section, in Sec. 14, Chapter 45, Session Laws 1905 was void for the reason that said chapter was enacted in violation of Sec. 26 of Article III of the Constitution of Wyoming in that the title to the Bill was as follows:

'AN ACT to amend and re-enact Chapter 5, Division 1, Title XVI, Revised Statutes of 1899, relating to the State Board of Medical Examiners.'

Defendant claims that the Bill as finally enacted into law did not amend and re-enact any of the provisions of existing law as required by the constitutional provision cited.

That Sec. 37-2007, Wyoming Compiled Statutes 1945 was first enacted as Sec. 7 of Chapter 45, Session Laws 1905, has never been amended and is void for the reasons above set forth.

Defendant also claims that Chapter 45, Session Laws 1905, although purporting in its title to be an amending and re-enacting Act, actually was a comprehensive new law attempting to cover the entire field of medical and surgical practice in Wyoming and containing new provisions not previously existing, especially Sec. 7 of the Act under which the defendant herein is being prosecuted, and that Chapter 45, Session Laws 1905 violated the provisions of Sec. 24, Art. III of the Constitution in that its title did not clearly express its subject and that the Act embraced more than one subject--(a) The State Board of Medical Examiners; (b) Defining a person practicing medicine; (c) Imposing penalties for practicing medicine, none of which was expressed in the title.

Thereupon the District Court stayed all further proceedings and reserved and sent to this court the following important and difficult constitutional questions which have arisen under defendant's demurrer and objections to trial, as follows:

I.

'Does Section 37-2014, Wyoming Compiled Statutes 1945, violate the provisions of Section 26 of Article III of the Constitution of Wyoming?

II.

'Does Section 37-2007, Wyoming Compiled Statutes 1945, violate the provisions of Section 26 of Article III of the Constitution of Wyoming?

III.

'Did Chapter 45 Session Laws of Wyoming 1905 (now sections 37-2001 to 37-2017, inclusive, Wyoming Compiled Statutes 1945, as amended), violate the provisions of Section 24 of Article III of the Constitution of Wyoming?'

A fourth constitutional question was certified to this court which has since been abandoned and need not now be considered.

Section 26 of Article III of the Constitution of Wyoming referred to in each of the questions numbered I and II submitted to this court provides:

'Laws--How amended.--No law shall be revised or amended, or the provisions thereof extended by reference to its title only, but so much thereof as is revised, amended, or extended, shall be re-enacted and published at length.'

Section 37-2014, W.C.S.1945, mentioned in question I, supra, has been on the statute books in one form or another since first enacted as Section 14, Chapter 18, Session Laws 1899, some fifty-three years. This section provides the penalty for practicing medicine or surgery without complying with the law.

Section 37-2007, W.C.S.1945 referred to in question II, supra, was first enacted as Section 7, Chapter 45, Session Laws 1905, and has never been amended in its forty-seven years on the statute books and is in words as follows:

'Practicing physicians--Defined.--Any person shall be regarded as practicing medicine, within the meaning of this Act (§§ 37-2001--37-2017), who shall in any manner hold himself out to the public as being engaged within this state in the diagnosis and treatment of diseases or injuries or deformities of human beings; or who shall suggest, recommend or prescribe any form of treatment for the intended palliation, relief or cure of any physical or mental ailment of any person with the intention of receiving therefor, either directly or indirectly, any fee, gift or compensation whatsoever; or who shall maintain an office for the reception, examination and treatment of any person suffering from disease or injury of body or mind; or who shall attach the title of M.D., surgeon, doctor or any other word or abbreviation to his name indicative that such person is engaged in the practice of medicine as hereinafter defined.'

These laws are old ones having to do with that ancient and honorable calling known as the medical profession and they assume to regulate the medical practice. It is a serious thing to consider the declaring of such laws unconstitutional. To do so there must be ample and good reason. The objection should be grave. The conflict between the statute and the Constitution should be substantial. The constitutional provision must be reasonably construed with a view of sustaining the legislative action. If there should remain any doubt as to the constitutionality of the law in question then the court should sustain it. See Cooley--Principles of Constitutional Law, Cooley's Constitutional Limitations Eighth Edition Vol. 1, Chapter 4 of the Construction of State Constitutions. Also Vol. 1, Chapter VI, Title of a Statute, page 291 et seq.--50 Am.Jur. 176, Sec. 195:--State v. Hall, 27 Wyo. 224, 194 P. 476--In re Fourth Judicial Dist., 4 Wyo. 133, 32 P. 850, In re Boulter, 5 Wyo. 329, 40 P. 520.

Reserved questions I and II, for the sake of brevity, will be discussed together.

There was a reasonable purpose and a sensible object in having Section 26, Article III, made a part of the Wyoming Constitution. Its purpose was intended to prevent ill-advised and fraudulent legislation. Perhaps to prevent that which was done by a Roman Emperor who published a law, but it was written in a very small hand and posted up in a corner so no one could make a copy of it. In other words, the constitutional restriction was aimed at the mischief of embracing in the same bill before a legislative body incongruous matters having no relation to each other, or to the subject specified in the title, by which laws were often adopted without attracting attention. Lewis Sutherland Statutory Construction Vol. 1, Sec. 111.

We are of the opinion that Section 26, Article III must be given an interpretation that is reasonable having in mind always the evils that are to be suppressed.

It is set forth in 59 C.J. 866, Sec. 448, that:

'These constitutional provisions have never, in construction, been given a rigid effect, but have been held applicable only to such statutes as come within their terms, when construed according to the spirit of such restrictions, and in the light of the evils to be suppressed. They should receive a reasonable and liberal construction, with the view of upholding the acts of the legislature, and not unnecessarily hampering or embarrassing it in its work; and the courts will not extend the construction of the prohibition beyond the mischief it was designed to prevent.'

In an early case before the Supreme Court of Michigan, the People ex rel. Drake v. Mahaney, 13 Mich. 481, 490, 494, 495, that Court had before it 'An Act to Establish a Police Government for the City of Detroit.' By a section of the act the officers of city marshal and assistantmarshal were abolished. Another section provided notices to be served on incumbent officers before new police officers were installed.

Judge Cooley, in an opinion commenting upon similar constitutional provisions in Michigan to the sections 24 and 26 of Article III of the Wyoming Constitution, had this to say:

'It is next objected that the law is invalid because in conflict with section twenty-five of article four of the constitution, which provides that 'no law shall be revised, altered or amended by reference to its title only; but the act revised, and the section or sections of the act altered or amended, shall be re-enacted and published at length.'

'The act before us does not assume in terms, to revise, alter or amend any prior act, or section of an act, but, by various transfers of duties it has an amendatory effect by implication, and by its last section it repeals all inconsistent acts. We are unable to see how this conflicts with the provision referred to. If, whenever, a new statute is passed, it is necessary that all prior statutes,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Billis v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • October 5, 1990
    ...a bill for the codification and general revision of the laws. We have recognized the meaning of this exception in State of Wyoming v. Pitet, 69 Wyo. 478, 243 P.2d 177 (1952). 20 Regarding revisions and codifications, Sutherland informs A revision is an act which restates the law embodied in......
  • McGraw Elec. Co. v. Lewis & Smith Drug Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • February 11, 1955
    ...32, 29 So.2d 418; Reagan v. Fentress County, 169 Tenn. 103, 83 S.W.2d 244; Teem v. State, 79 Tex.Cr. 285, 183 S.W. 1144; State v. Pitet, 69 Wyo. 478, 243 P.2d 177. It is true that this act was carried into the 1943 revision which was duly authorized and thereafter regularly and duly adopted......
  • Frank v. City of Cody
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • December 9, 1977
    ...for the issuance of bonds by hospital districts.9 The evil at which § 26, Article III, is directed is explained in State v. Pitet, 1952, 69 Wyo. 478, 243 P.2d 177:" * * * Its purpose was intended to prevent ill-advised and fraudulent legislation. Perhaps to prevent that which was done by a ......
  • State v. Mabry
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • September 19, 1990
    ...687, 688 (Tex.Civ.App.1932); State v. Chesapeake & Potomac Tel. Co., 121 W.Va. 420, 421, 4 S.E.2d 257, 258 (1939); State v. Pitet, 69 Wyo. 478, 498, 243 P.2d 177, 186 (1952). The rule is stated this Although an act, as originally passed, was unconstitutional because it contained matter diff......
  • 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