State ex rel. Crandall v. McIntosh
Supreme Court of Missouri
Mandamus. (1) The demurrer to part of respondents’ return should he sustained for the reason that the acts, if any, of relator, in violation of the prior laws, can only be punished as therein provided and can afford respondents no excuse in this case. Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U. S. 114 (2) The power of the State to regulate dentistry is based solely on the police power, and it has some limitations.
Read the full summary
Mandamus. (1) The demurrer to part of respondents’ return should he sustained for the reason that the acts, if any, of relator, in violation of the prior laws, can only be punished as therein provided and can afford respondents no excuse in this case. Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U. S. 114 (2) The power of the State to regulate dentistry is based solely on the police power, and it has some limitations. State v. Tower, 185 Mo. 100. (3) We do not complain of the ruling announced by this court in State v. Doerring, 194 Mo. 398, but that case, and the cases cited and followed by the court, do not…
1Opinion of the CourtLamm, J.
This case stands on relator’s demurrer to part of respondents’ return to an alternative writ of mandamus. It appears from our records that an alternative writ was ordered to go, and that one went; but no such writ appears in our files. Since respondents appeared and pleaded, we shall treat the pe: tition as equivalent to the writ for the purposes of the demurrer. Its averments were presumably copied into the writ. Hence, as a matter of grace, the one may stand for the other. [State ex rel. v. Gregory, 83 Mo. 1. c. 125.]
Relator alleges he was born in the United States, is a citizen of the…
2Cases cited34 opinions
- State ex rel. Kellogg v. CurrensWisconsin Supreme Court · 1901
- People v. PhippinMichigan Supreme Court · 1888
- Jones v. BlackSupreme Court of Alabama · 1872
- Wilkins v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1888
- Kettles v. PeopleIllinois Supreme Court · 1906
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Ex Parte LockhartSupreme Court of Missouri · 1943
- Ballentine v. NesterSupreme Court of Missouri · 1942
- Oren v. Swift CompanySupreme Court of Missouri · 1932
- Adair Drainage District v. Quincy, Omaha & Kansas City RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1919
- State v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1961
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.