Purviance v. Compton

California Court of Appeal Oct 10, 1928 No. Docket No. 6268.Published

Before: Campbell

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that an injunction cannot be used to challenge the exercise of administrative power by a state board or to contest the title or qualifications of de facto public officers.

Issues

Whether the Chiropractic Act's grant of power to revoke licenses constitutes an unconstitutional exercise of judicial power.
Whether the title or qualifications of public officers can be challenged through an injunction action.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It follows, therefore, that injunction will not lie on the theory that respondents in the present case are exercising judicial power.”

“The jurisdiction to determine the title to public office or the qualifications of public officers belongs exclusively to the courts of law.”

“They were at least de facto officers, and even if not qualified, the functioning of the office and the officers is not to be controlled by injunction.”

CAMPBELL, J.,

pro tem.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered in favor of defendants upon the sustaining of the demurrer without leave being given to amend.

[278]

The plaintiff, a chiropractic practitioner, seeks an injunction against the defendants, members of the State Board of Chiropractic Examiners. The action sought to be enjoined is the threatened act of placing on trial as to a fact, and the passing judgment upon such proof, in the investigation and revoking of plaintiff’s license to practice chiropractic in this state.

The Chiropractic Act (Stats. 1923, lxxxviii; Deering’s Gen. Laws 1923, Act 4811) at section 10 provides that a license shall be revoked in proper cases. It further provides that a complaint shall be filed and other proceedings followed. Section 4 (c) empowers the board to revoke licenses, and section 4 (d) authorizes the summoning of witnesses and the taking of testimony.

The facts generally alleged in the complaint are: On February 10, 1923, .the governor of the state of California appointed the so-called “First Board of Chiropractic Examiners”; that on September 17, 1923, in an action prosecuted by the people of the state of California against such appointees, this “First Board” was ousted and removed from office upon the grounds that each member appointed thereon was unqualified and ineligible to act in that each had been a persistent violator of the state laws and that not one of them held a lawful license to practice, and that their appointment on such board was unauthorized and void; that after September 17, 1923, and before the commencement of this action said governor of the state of California appointed or purported to appoint said defendants herein, James Compton, a member of the “First Board” to whom no license to practice chiropractic has ever been issued after an examination, and the other defendants, whose licenses were issued by the first illegal board, members of the State Board of Chiropractic Examiners, being in fact the second board appointed under said initiative act, but in law the first board— as the so-called first board was no board; that said defendants were not then and are not now, nor is any one of them qualified to act as members of said board; that none of said defendants has practiced or did practice chiropractic in California for a period of three years next preceding the date upon which the act took effect or ever have been licensed to practice under any of the medical practice acts, but each of said defendants has assumed possession and control of

Purviance v. Compton

AI Brief

CAMPBELL, J.,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief