Texas State Board of Barber Examiners v. Beaumont Barber College, Inc.
| Decision Date | 27 May 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. B-1968,B-1968 |
| Citation | 454 S.W.2d 729 |
| Parties | TEXAS STATE BOARD OF BARBER EXAMINERS et al., Petitioners, v. BEAUMONT BARBER COLLEGE, INC. et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Crawford C. Martin, Atty. Gen., John H. Banks, Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, for petitioners.
Carl R. Griffith, Beaumont, for respondents.
This case presents questions of the enforceability of subsections (c)(1), (3) and (8) of Sec. 9 of Art. 734a, Vernon's Ann.P.C., against the branch barber college of respondent, Beaumont Barber College, Inc. Petitioner, the Texas State Board of Barber Examiners, revoked the permit of the branch college because of non-compliance with these statutory provisions and this action was sustained by the trial court. The court of civil appeals was of the view that the statutory requirements constituted an unreasonable exercise of the police power; but, if not, that they are inapplicable. 448 S.W.2d 498. We are not in agreement with either holding of the intermediate court.
The statutory provisions invoked by the Board were among those included in a comprehensive amendment by the Legislature in 1961 1 of Sec. 9 of Art. 734a, the Texas Barber Law, pertaining to the regulation of barber colleges. Subsection (c) of Sec. 9 was amended to provide:
'(c) No barber school or college which issues 'Class A' certificates shall be approved by the Board for the issuance of a permit unless said school or college has the following:
(1) An adequate school site housed in a substantial building of a permanent-type construction containing a minimum of not less than two thousand, eight hundred (2,800) square feet of floor space. Such space shall be divided into the following separate departments: a senior department, a junior department, a class theory room, a supply room, an office space, a dressing and cloak room, and two (2) sanitary, modern separate rest rooms, equipped with one (1) commode each and a urinal in one (1) rest room.
(2) A hard-surface floor covering of tile or other suitable material.
(3) A minimum of twenty (20) modern barber chairs with cabinet and mirror for each chair.
(4) One (1) lavatory in back of each two (2) chairs.
(5) A liquid sterilizer for each chair.
(6) An adequate number of latherizers, vibrators, and hair dryers for the use of students.
(7) Adequate lighting of all rooms.
(8) At least twenty (20) classroom chairs, a blackboard, anatomical charts of the head, neck and face, and one (1) barber chair in the class theory room.
(9) A library and library facilities available to students, containing a medical dictionary and a standard work on the human anatomy.
(10) Adequate drinking fountain facilities, but at least one (1) to each floor.
(11) Adequate toilet facilities for the students.
(12) Adequate fire-fighting equipment to be maintained in case of emergency.'
At the time the amendatory Act became effective in 1961, Beaumont Barber College Inc. was conducting a barber college in downtown Beaumont, Texas which met the statutory requirements and a branch barber college in a community center which did not. The permit of the branch college was renewed annually but its facilities were not brought into compliance with the statute. Under date of August 10, 1967 the Board revoked the current permit of the branch college for the stated reasons that it was being conducted in violation of subsections (c)(1), (3) and (8) of § 9 of Art. 734a. It was found by the Board, and is not disputed, that the branch college only contained approximately 1000 square feet of floor space with only 12 barber and 12 classroom chairs. Beaumont Barber College, Inc. instituted this suit as an appeal from the order of revocation. It was stipulated that its case would be submitted to the court upon the record before the Board in the revocation hearing, together with certain additional exhibits consisting of the original certificate of approval issued to the branch college in 1959, the currently effective permit and the order of the Board under which it was revoked. The record before the Board consisted of the testimony of its executive secretary and of Mr. J. C. Quinn, the then president of respondent. The somewhat inconclusive character of the testimony of the executive secretary of the Board is illustrated by the excerpts quoted in the opinion of the intermediate court. Mr. Quinn testified that the investment of the corporation in the branch college was approximately $16,000; that the branch is conducted in leased property but he did not know when the lease would expire; that he could train the branch college students at the downtown school; that having the two locations increased 'floor trade' and his charge for a haircut at the branch by the student barbers was one-half that charged at regular barber shops in Beaumont; that he does not believe the space and chair requirements of the statute 'would in any way upgrade the quality of students or profession or people that you're turning out up there * * *'
The regulation of the occupation of barbering is necessary to the public health and a proper subject for the exercise of the police power. Gerard v. Smith, 52 S.W.2d 347 (Tex.Civ.App.1932, writ ref'd); Lackey v. State Board of Barber Examiners, 113 S.W.2d 968 (Tex.Civ.App.1938, no writ); State Board of Barber Examiners v. Comer, 109 S.W.2d 1012 (Tex.Civ.App.1937, no writ). This includes the regulation of barber colleges who offer a barber service to the general public in connection with the training of their students. This is not questioned by respondent. Its position is that the 1961 Act does not apply to its existing branch college but that if it does, the statute violates § 16 of Art. 1 of the Texas Bill of Rights, Vernon's Ann.St., as a retroactive law and one which impairs the obligations of contracts; and, finally, that the statutory requirements in question are an unreasonable--and hence invalid--exercise of the police power.
The 1961 Act contains no 'grandfather' clause permitting the continued operation of existing barber colleges without compliance with the newly established statutory requirements. That this was deliberate legislative action is indicated by the provision in subsection (f) of § 9 of Art. 734a for persons then engaged in teaching in a barber school or college...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commission for Lawyer Discipline v. Benton
...Barshop v. Medina County Underground Water Conservation Dist., 925 S.W.2d 618, 629 (Tex.1996); Texas State Bd. of Barber Exam'rs v. Beaumont Barber College, Inc., 454 S.W.2d 729, 732 (Tex.1970).1 The fact that the underlying Salas v. Abete case was pending retrial when Benton wrote his lett......
-
Texas Workers' Compensation Com'n v. Garcia
...v. Stamos, 695 S.W.2d 556, 558 (Tex.1985); Sax v. Votteler, 648 S.W.2d 661, 664 (Tex.1983); Texas State Bd. of Barber Exam'rs v. Beaumont Barber College, Inc., 454 S.W.2d 729, 732 (Tex.1970); Smith v. Davis, 426 S.W.2d 827, 831 (Tex.1968); Texas Nat'l Guard Armory Bd. v. McCraw, 132 Tex. 61......
-
Texas Workers' Compensation Com'n v. Garcia
...merely to try to craft a remedy that we might believe to be more inclusive or equitable. See Texas State Bd. of Barber Examiners v. Beaumont Barber College, 454 S.W.2d 729, 732 (Tex.1970) ("It is not the function of the courts to judge the wisdom of a legislative enactment."). Accordingly, ......
-
Robinson v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc.
...State Teachers Ass'n case, the parts of these opinions cited by Barshop are obiter dicta. See Texas State Bd. of Barber Exam'rs v. Beaumont Barber Coll., Inc., 454 S.W.2d 729, 732 (Tex.1970) (stating, after concluding that barber college had no vested right to operate with less floorspace a......