Washington Beauty College, Inc. v. Huse

• Decision Date: 07 June 1938
• Docket Number: 27103.
• Citation: 80 P.2d 403,195 Wash. 160
• Parties: WASHINGTON BEAUTY COLLEGE, Inc., et al. v. HUSE, Director of Licenses, et al.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

80 P.2d 403

195 Wash. 160

WASHINGTON BEAUTY COLLEGE, Inc., et al. v. HUSE, Director of Licenses, et al.

No. 27103.

Supreme Court of Washington

June 7, 1938

Department 1.

Appeal from Superior Court, Thurston County; John M. Wilson, Judge.

Action by Washington Beauty College, Inc., Moler Barber School Inc., May Helland Hair Shop, Inc., and J. E. Elroff, doing business as Carson Hairdressing College, against Harry C Huse, Director of Licenses of the state of Washington, and G W. Hamilton, Attorney General of the state of Washington under the Declaratory Judgments Act to secure a judgment passing upon the validity of the statutory provision relative to the licensing of hairdressers and beauty culturists. From a judgment holding the provision constitutional, first named plaintiff appeals.

Reversed and remanded, with instructions.

Edward Starin, of Seattle, for appellant.

G. W. Hamilton, Atty. Gen., and John E. Belcher, of Tacoma, for respondents.

HOLCOMB Justice.

This action was instituted under Rem.Rev.Stat. (Supp.), §§ 784-1 to 784-17 (Ch. 113, p. 305, Laws of 1935, as amended by Ch. 14, p. 39, Laws of 1937), the declaratory judgments act, to secure a judgment passing upon the validity of § 3(a) of chapter 215, p. 1043, Laws of 1937. From a judgment entered holding this statutory provision constitutional, the Washington Beauty College, Inc., alone appeals.

Chapter 215, p. 1041, supra, reflects an attempt to regulate the practices of hairdressing and beauty culture. It sets forth the educational qualifications for hairdressers and beauty culturists, provides for schools and a course of study therefor, and the licensing of such operators.

Section 3(a), chapter 215, p. 1043, Laws of 1937, provides in part: 'No person shall be licensed as an operator unless he shall be of the age of eighteen years or over, is of good moral character and temperate habits, has a high school education, and has completed a course of training of not less than two thousand (2,000) hours in not less than twelve (12) months, and shall have been examined as herein provided: provided, That any person, otherwise, qualified, who at the time the first examination is held after this act shall take effect, has had a continuous course of study for twelve (12) months as an apprentice to a manager licensed under this act, or who has completed a six (6) months course of training in a beauty school licensed under this act, may take such examination.' (Italics ours.)

Appellant conducts a school in which the practice of hairdressing and beauty culture is taught. In its complaint appellant alleges that it has entered into contracts with students by which it agreed to furnish the necessary instruction to enable them to qualify for the examination required by law; that it now has a number of students enrolled who have no facilities for procuring a high school education when such contracted course shall be completed; that this act violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal constitution, U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 14, and Article 1, § 3, of the state constitution, since it precludes any person who has not a high school education from qualifying to practice beauty culture and hairdressing; that the right of appellant to contract with students and prospective students would be abridged; that the provisions of this act are unduly burdensome, arbitrary, and unreasonable and have no relationship to the public health or public welfare; and that the provisions of § 3 of the act would nullify existing contracts between appellant and students in its school, and thereby deprive appellant of its property without due process of law. We are not concerned with the other allegations embodied in the complaint inasmuch as they were not argued upon appeal.

Appellant prayed that the act be declared unconstitutional and that respondents be restrained from enforcing the same.

Respondents answered admitting the formal allegations of the complaint, alleging that the provisions of § 3, supra, are necessary and proper to cure evils under the existing law, and that this section of the act is not applicable to contracts existing on the effective date of the act.

Appellant replied stating that if § 3 of the act were enforced it would abridge and nullify its contracts, and pleaded in effect a general denial.

The trial court entered judgment holding § 3(a) of chapter 215, p. 1043, Laws of 1937, was a reasonable, valid, and constitutional regulation, necessary for the protection of the general public. A motion for a new trial was made and denied.

We are now called upon to determine whether § 3(a), chapter 215, p. 1043, Laws of 1937, is violative of the Fourteenth Amendment to the constitution of the United States and of Article 1, § 3 of our state constitution.

It is urged that appellant is not in a position to have this court pass upon the constitutionality of this act because it has no suable interest.

Section 2, chapter 113, p. 305, Laws of 1935 (Rem.Rev.Stat. (Supp.), § 784-2), relating to declaratory judgments, provides: 'A person interested under a deed, will, written contract or other writings constituting a contract, or whose rights, status or other legal relations are affected by a statute, municipal ordinance, contract or franchise, may have determined any question of construction or validity arising under the instrument, statute, ordinance, contract or franchise and obtain a declaration of rights, status or other legal relations thereunder.'

This court has had the declaratory judgment act under consideration in several recent cases. In Johnson v. State, 187 Wash. 605, 60 P.2d 681, 106 A.L.R. 237, Acme Finance Co. v. Huse, 73 P.2d 341, 114 AL.L.R. 1345, and State ex rel. Yakima Amusement Co. v. Yakima County, 73 P.2d 759, we allowed it to be invoked to determine the validity of certain statutes.

In Clemens v. Slayden, 189 Wash. 433, 65 P.2d 1082, appellants sought the construction of a will and a decree of distribution. We held that the declaratory judgments act does not provide for the institution of such a proceeding, as the probate cause had been closed by final decree.

In Schoenwald v. Diamond K. Packing Co., Wash., 73 P.2d 748, appellant prayed for a declaratory judgment which was refused by reason of the construction placed upon the contract and because the petition called for the adjudication of questions not raised by the appeal and which were beyond the jurisdiction of the court.

The statement of facts Before us in the case at bar is in narrative form. The trial judge certified that it contains all of the evidence and testimony pertaining to the constitutionality of § 3(a), supra, which was offered upon the trial of the cause. The contracts alleged to be affected are not in the record, nor is their content indicated.

Besides no evidence has been placed in the record to support the allegations in the complaint to the effect that appellant's existing contracts would be impaired by the aforementioned statutory provision. Under the pleadings the burden is upon appellant to support its allegations by adequate proof. Coffman v. Spokane Chronicle Publishing Co., 65 Wash. 1, 117 P. 596, Ann.Cas.1913B, 636; Steward...