People v. Superior Court

THE COURT.

A petition for a writ of mandate, directing the respondent court to make and file findings of fact in an action for declaratory relief.

The action was brought by a holder of a license to practice

[9]

chiropractic, seeking an interpretation of section 7 of the Chiropractic Act, which reads as follows: “One form of certificate shall be issued by the board of chiropractic examiners, which said certificate shall be designated ‘License to practice chiropractic’, which license shall authorize the holder thereof to practice chiropractic in the state of California as taught in chiropractic schools or colleges; and, also, to use all necessary mechanical and hygienic and sanitary measures incident to the care of the body, but shall not authorize the practice of medicine, surgery, osteopathy, dentistry or optometry, nor the use of any drug or medicine now or hereafter included in

materia medica.”

By leave of court several pleadings in intervention were filed by persons similarly interested. The attorney-general also filed a petition on behalf of the People of the State of California. These pleadings presented several material issues of fact. It is admitted that at the trial evidence was adduced by the respective parties on the questions presented. At the conclusion thereof the trial court filed an opinion, stating its interpretation of the act, but not the facts established by the evidence as the basis for its conclusions and which evidence is not before us. The People,—who are petitioners here,—requested respondent to make or cause to be made and filed findings of fact, and to that end proposed certain findings in writing. It is alleged, and not denied, that the request was refused and that no findings upon the issues of fact have been filed.

It is well settled that in the determination of legal duties and rights in an action for declaratory relief the court may determine the disputed questions of fact

(R. G. Hamilton Co.

v.

Corum,

218 Cal. 92 [21 Pac. (2d) 413]) ; and where such are put in issue by the pleadings, as appears to have been the case here, section 632 of the Code of Civil Procedure, requiring findings where questions of fact are tried by the court, would seem to apply.