Case ID: pa_148/html/0342-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pee Ctjbiam,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Moore, Appellant, v. Bradford County.
    
      Physicians — Transient or itinerant practitioners — License — Acts of March 24, 1877, and June 8, 1881.
    The act of March 24, 1877, section 4, P. L. 43, providing that transient or itinerant practitioners of medicine or surgery shall take out licenses and pay a fee therefor into the county treasury, is not repealed by the act of June 8, 1881, P. L. 72, which provides for the registration of all practitioners of medicine and surgery.
    Argued March 16, 1892.
    Appeal, No. 342, Jan. T., 1892, by plaintiff, J. Harvey Moore, from judgment of C. P. Bradford Co., Dec. T., 1891, No. 631, on case stated, in favor of defendant.
    Before Paxson, C. J., Sterrett, Williams, Mc-Collum and Heydeick, JJ.
    The case stated was as follows:
    “ The attorneys for the parties above named hereby agree upon the following facts for presentation as a case stated, for the opinion of the court, which shall have the effect of a special verdict :
    “ 1st. J. Harvey Moore is a resident of the state of Pennsylvania, and duly qualified to practice medicine and surgery therein, and was so qualified prior to May 14, 1891.
    “ 2d. The said J. Harvey Moore is duly registered in Bradford county as a physician and surgeon, and prior to May 14, 1891, complied with the provisions of the act of assembly of June 8,1881, entitled ‘ An act to provide for the registration of all practitioners of medicine and surgery.’ See P. L. p. 72, etc.
    “ 3d. That on or about May 14, 1891, the said J. Harvey Moore practiced medicine and surgery, for valuable consideration, by opening a transient office in Towanda, in said Bradford county, and by handbills and other forms of written or printed advertisements, assigned such transient office to persons seeking medical or surgical advice or treatment. That he itinerates from place to place, and is a transient practitioner of medicine and surgery within the act of March 24,1877, entitled ‘ An act to protect the people of this commonwealth against incompetent practitioners of medicine, surgery and obstetrics.’
    March 28, 1892:
    “ 4th. On May 14, 1891, the treasurer of Bradford county demanded of said J. Harvey Moore the fee of fifty dollars, as provided in and by said act of 24th March, 1877.
    “ 5th. The said J. Harvey Moore denied the right of the said treasurer to collect said fee, and that collection of same could not be legally enforced.
    “ 6th. On May 15,1891, the said J. Harvey Moore, after the demand made by the treasurer as aforesaid, and under protest, and to avoid arrest, complied with the provisions of said act of March 24, 1877, and paid into the treasury of Bradford county the sum of fifty dollars; he also paid to the clerk of the court of quarter sessions the sum of five dollars, as provided by said act of 1877.
    “ If the court shall be of opinion that the county of Bradford or its treasurer could legally have required said fee from the said plaintiff, then judgment shall be entered for the defendant; but if the court be of opinion that said sum of fifty dollars could not have been legally required as aforesaid, then judgment shall be entered for the plaintiff.
    “ The costs to follow the judgment, and either party to have the right to appeal.”
    The court in an opinion by Peck, P. J., entered judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appealed.
    
      Errors assigned were (1) entering judgment for defendant; (2) not entering judgment for plaintiff.
    
      James H. Godding, for appellant.
    
      I. McPherson, E. J. Angle with him, for appellee.
   Pee Ctjbiam,

We think the court below was right in entering judgment for the defendant upon the facts as set forth in the case stated. We do not think the act of June 8,1881, in regard to the practitioners in the practice of medicine and surgery, repeals the 4th section of the act of March 24,1877. The latter is not inconsistent with the act of 1881, which is but supplementary to the act of 1877, and it is therefore not repealed.

Judgment affirmed.