Waller v. State
Citation | 68 S.W.2d 601 |
Decision Date | 29 January 1934 |
Docket Number | No. 4133.,4133. |
Parties | WALLER v. STATE. |
Court | Court of Appeals of Texas |
Appeal from District Court, Potter County; W. E. Gee, Judge.
Complaint by the State of Texas against Harvey A. Waller to cancel defendant's license to practice dentistry. From a judgment canceling his license, defendant appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Lackey & Lackey, of Stinnett, and Henry L. Ford and R. H. Hamilton, both of Amarillo, for appellant.
Edw. W. Thomerson and R. E. Underwood, Jr., both of Amarillo, for the State.
The state of Texas, through the district attorney of Potter county, filed a complaint against Harvey A. Waller, a duly licensed and practicing dentist of Amarillo, Potter county, Tex., which contained certain allegations hereinafter set out, and asking for a cancellation of the dental license held by said Waller. Another was included with Waller as one of the defendants, but was dismissed out of the case.
The material portion of said complaint is in the following language:
Appellant filed answer, the nature of which it is unnecessary to notice.
The trial court submitted the case under a general charge to the jury, who found the appellant guilty as charged, and judgment was accordingly entered canceling appellant's license to practice dentistry, from which judgment this appeal is prosecuted.
Appellee's cause of action, if any it has, was filed under article 4549, R. S. 1925, reading as follows:
The accusatory portion of appellee's petition is under and relates only to that portion of said article authorizing the cancellation of the license of any dentist who is guilty of "any deception or misrepresentation for the purpose of soliciting or obtaining business."
The charge of the court limited the accusation to a misrepresentation for the purpose of soliciting or obtaining business, and we decide here only questions relating to appellant's conviction as so limited. That portion of the court's charge deemed material to show the precise character of the accusation of which appellant was found guilty is in the following language:
The validity of the quoted statute which furnished authority for the judgment herein is under vigorous attack. We have grave doubt as to the constitutionality of all that portion of the statute upon which the instant prosecution is based; but since a proper disposition we think can be made of the case without expressly deciding this question, it is our privilege, as well perhaps as our duty, to do so. 9 Tex. Jur. 467; Kean & Crofford Co. v. City of Dallas (Tex. Civ. App.) 244 S. W. 655. If we have doubt as to its constitutionality as written, we have none at all that the interpretation and application given it by the prosecution in the instant case renders it plainly unconstitutional. Otherwise expressed, the conviction here rests upon an accusation, charge, and evidence that could not be made the legal basis of depriving a citizen of Texas of the right to labor and enjoy the fruits of that labor in his chosen profession, and this though all that is charged and proven against him be true. It is not claimed any act of appellant was such as was reasonably calculated to or did in fact affect the health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the public, or any of its members. It is not contended that appellant was not equipped to do and could do proficiently and expertly everything he said he could do. It is not charged or proven that anybody was misled or deceived to his injury, or could have been, by his statements. Reduced to their last analysis, his statements amounted to no more than a claim that he was better equipped than his professional brethren to do a certain class of dental work and was doing such work better than they. Being equipped to do and able to do precisely the character of work he advertised, who could be injured by the representation that he could do it better than others, unless it be his competitors who lost business to him by reason of his statements? If the latter only, no contention could be made that legislative authority existed under the police power inherent in sovereignty to cancel a professional license upon any such narrow and selfish ground. That the practice of dentistry may be regulated and controlled by virtue of and under the police power of the state is not to be doubted, but there are well-defined limitations upon the exercise of this power, which we now notice. The Colorado Supreme Court, in holding unconstitutional a statute of similar import to the one under attack, delivered a spirited and well-considered opinion. We have found no more lucid statement of the legal principles which we think rule this case than is contained in the opinion of that court in the case of Chenoweth v. State Board of Medical Examiners, 57 Colo. 74, 141 P. 132, 134, 51 L. R. A. (N. S.) 958, Ann. Cas....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cameron v. Cameron
...General Drivers, Helpers Local No. 657 v. Thornton, 156 Tex. 641, 647, 299 S.W.2d 911, 915 (1957); Waller v. State, 68 S.W.2d 601, 603 (Tex.Civ.App.--Amarillo 1934, writ ref'd). In my opinion, there are no constitutional limitations on the power of the trial court to divest a spouse of his ......
-
Thompson v. Texas State Bd. of Medical Examiners
...years with certain conditions constituted cruel and unusual punishment. Appellants direct our attention to Waller v. State, 68 S.W.2d 601 (Tex.Civ.App. Amarillo 1934, writ ref'd), wherein the court reversed and remanded for trial the trial court's revocation of a dentist's license due to mi......
-
Kirby v. Edgewood Independent School Dist.
...746 S.W.2d 203 (Tex.1987) (right to privacy); Holick v. Smith, 685 S.W.2d 18 (Tex.1985) (parental rights); Waller v. State, 68 S.W.2d 601 (Tex.Civ.App.1934, writ ref'd) (right to pursue an Food and shelter are not explicitly provided for in our State Constitution, nor does the State underta......
-
Industrial Acc. Bd. v. O'Dowd
...v. Board of Dental Examiners, Tex.Civ.App., 149 S.W.2d 619, wr. ref., the Court quoted with approval the following from Waller v. State, Tex.Civ.App., 68 S.W.2d 601, wr. ref., 'The right to practice a profession has been called a property right, but it is more. To obtain a license and profi......