State ex rel. Kirchgessner v. Board of Health
Supreme Court of New Jersey
On rule for mandamus. The relator seeks a mandamus to compel the board of health and vital statistics of the county of Hudson to admit him to sign the register of physicians and surgeons practicing in said ■county, as provided by ordinance. On the 6th day of June, 1888, the board adopted a body of ordinances, of which the one hundred and thirteenth section ■is involved in this controversy. The passage of this ordinance is admitted to be under legislative authority.
Read the full summary
On rule for mandamus. The relator seeks a mandamus to compel the board of health and vital statistics of the county of Hudson to admit him to sign the register of physicians and surgeons practicing in said ■county, as provided by ordinance. On the 6th day of June, 1888, the board adopted a body of ordinances, of which the one hundred and thirteenth section ■is involved in this controversy. The passage of this ordinance is admitted to be under legislative authority. The relator has not practiced as a physician in this state, but he holds a diploma from a medical school or college bearing the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Knapp, J.
The writ oí mandamus is not oí right. The-allowance of its use rests in judicial discretion. It is rarely issued to a subordinate body or tribunal for the purpose of directing the particular judgment that shall be given by such tribunal, or directing an act to be performed in a specified-manner. It is only so used when the act to be,done is a ministerial one merely, and the duty to perform it in a definite-way is clear. Benedict v. Howell, 10 Vroom 221; Mooney v. Edwards, 22 Id. 479.
The writ which the relator seeks is of this character, and…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Ring v. PattersonOregon Supreme Court · 1931
- Raaf v. State Board of Medical ExaminersIdaho Supreme Court · 1906
- Sherburne v. Board of Dental ExaminersIdaho Supreme Court · 1907
- Gleistman v. Town of West New YorkSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1906
- In re LoriganHawaii Supreme Court · 1920
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.