Sullivan v. Mich. State Bd. of Dentistry

• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: BUTZEL
• Citation: Sullivan v. Mich. State Bd. of Dentistry, 268 Mich. 427, 256 N.W. 471 (Mich. 1934)
• Decision Date: 18 September 1934
• Docket Number: No. 123.,123.
• Parties: SULLIVAN et al. v. MICHIGAN STATE BOARD OF DENTISTRY et al. (MICHIGAN STATE DENTAL SOC. et al., Interveners).

268 Mich. 427

256 N.W. 471

SULLIVAN et al.

v.MICHIGAN STATE BOARD OF DENTISTRY et al. (MICHIGAN STATE DENTAL SOC. et al., Interveners).

No. 123.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Sept. 18, 1934.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County, in Chancery; Thomas J. Murphy, Judge.

Bill by Gordon B. Sullivan and others against the Michigan State Board of Dentistry and others, in which the Michigan State Dental Society intervened. From a decree dismissing the bill, the plaintiffs appeal.

Affirmed.

Argued before the Entire Bench.

Edward N. Barnard, of Detroit, for appellants.

Frank Darin and Wilber M. Brucker, both of Detroit, for intervening defendants and appellees.

Patrick H. O'Brien, Atty. Gen., and Francis K. Young, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendants.

BUTZEL, Justice.

Gordon B. Sullivan and others, duly licensed and practicing dentists, filed a bill to restrain the Michigan State Board of Dentistry from enforcing Act 235 of the Public Acts of 1933. The Michigan State Dental Society has intervened as a defendant.

Section 2 of the act provides: ‘Said board shall adopt rules and regulations for its own organization and for the practice of dentistry in this state and for carrying out the provisions of this act, and may amend, modify and repeal said rules and regulations from time to time. The said rules and regulations and any amendments thereto shall become effective upon the legality of same being established by the attorney general. * * *’

Plaintiffs claim that the quoted provision empowering the board to adopt rules and regulations for the practice of dentistry is an unlawful and unconstitutional delegation of legislative powers, vitiates the entire act, and destroys its constitutionality. They fear that the board, instead of merely adopting rules and regulations setting forth the details for carrying out the expressed provisions of the act and forbidding practices unquestionably within the purview of the act, may assume legislative functions and attempt to proscribe practices that the Legislature has neither expressly or inferentially outlawed. A board or commission has no such legislative power. See G. F. Redmond & Co. v. Michigan Securities Commission, 222 Mich. 1, 192 N. W. 688;In re Van Hyning, 257 Mich. 148, 241 N. W. 207.

No rules or regulations have thus far been promulgated by the board, nor is it shown that any have been submitted to the Attorney General to establish their legality. It is not to be presumed that the board will adopt any rules and regulations for the practice of dentistry that do not meet the test of constitutionality. It is not our duty to pass on moot questions or abstract propositions. As no unconstitutional...