Title: Dennis v. State Board of Barber Examiners

State: kansas

Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court

Document:

174 Kan. 561 (1953)
257 P.2d 940
ROBERT I. DENNIS, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
THE STATE BOARD OF BARBER EXAMINERS, et al., Defendants.
No. 38,794

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed June 6, 1953.
Frederick Hall and Donald C. Smith, both of Dodge City, were on the briefs for the plaintiffs.
Donald Hickman, of Arkansas City, argued the cause, and Harold R. Fatzer, attorney general, and Paul E. Wilson, assistant attorney general, and Kirke W. Dale, of Arkansas City, were with him on the briefs for the defendants.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
PARKER, J.:
This is an original proceeding in mandamus brought by private individuals to compel the duly appointed members of the State Board of Barber Examiners to take official action. Upon application an alternative writ issued to the defendants who, in due time, filed a motion to quash such writ. The case was presented to this court on issues thus joined.
The theory on which plaintiffs claim the right to maintain the action is set forth in the opening paragraph of their brief which reads:
G.S. 1949, 65-1830, on which the plaintiffs rely for relief, is one of the sections of chapter 298, Laws of 1941, now G.S. 1949, 65-1823 to 1834, incl., enacted by the legislature for the purpose of regulating and controlling the barbershop business. For purposes essential to the disposition of the cause it may be said:
That the title of the Act reads:
That section 11 thereof (G.S. 1949, 65-1833) states:
And that the first subsection of section 8 of such Act (G.S. 1949, 65-1830), which is followed by other subsections outlining the procedure to be followed by the barber board upon initiation of the action therein mentioned, provides:
The paramount issue raised by defendants' motion to quash the alternative writ, which we pause to note must be treated as tantamount *563 to a demurrer under our decisions (See Hatcher's Kansas Digest [Rev. Ed], Mandamus, § 121, West's Kansas Digest, Mandamus, § 162), is that the petition shows upon its fact that the plaintiffs have no legal capacity to maintain the action. We are convinced it appears from plaintiffs' own theory, as well as from the allegations of their petition, to which we shall presently refer, that this ground of the motion to quash has merit and must be upheld.
The rule that private citizens without interest or rights distinct from those of other citizens cannot maintain an action in mandamus to compel public officials to perform their duty is well-established in this jurisdiction.
Long ago in Bobbett v. State ex rel. Dresher, 10 Kan. 9, we held:
The principles announced in the foregoing decisions, although often times differently stated, have been repeatedly and steadfastly adhered to by this court down to and including our most recent decisions. See, e.g., Gormley v. School Board, 110 Kan. 600, 204 Pac. 741; Weigand v. City of Wichita, 111 Kan. 455, 207 Pac. 651; Collingwood v. Schmidt, 125 Kan. 81, 262 Pac. 556; Bobbitt v. State Highway Comm., 138 Kan. 487, 26 P.2d 1115; Citizens Utilities Co. v. City of Goodland, 146 Kan. 172, 175, 69 P.2d 318; Bradley v. Cleaver, 150 Kan. 699, 95 P.2d 295.
Numerous other Kansas decisions to the same effect can be found by resort to Hatcher's Kansas Digest [Rev. Ed], Mandamus, §§ 109 to 112, incl., and West's Kansas Digest, Mandamus, §§ 22, 23, 145, 146.
Bobbitt v. State Highway Comm., supra, is entitled to special consideration because it recogizes that the foregoing principles have application to injunction as well as mandamus proceedings. See page 489 of its opinion which reads:
For more recent decisions, dealing with injunction proceedings but nevertheless adhering to the same principles, see Dunn v. Morton County Comm'rs, 162 Kan. 449, 177 P.2d 207; Haines v. Rural High School Dist. No. 3, 171 Kan. 271, 232 P.2d 437; and the many decisions, relating to both injunction and mandamus proceedings, cited in each of such opinions.
Collingwood v. Schmidt, supra, warrants particular attention because of a contention advanced by plaintiffs in substance to the effect that they have special interests in the relief sought beyond that of the public in general because they are signatories to the petition recognized by the statute (65-1830, supra,) on which they rely. In that case the plaintiff, an individual citizen, voter, taxpayer and wheat grower of Stanton County brought an original proceeding in mandamus against the members of the board of county commissioners to compel them to put the township herd law into force and effect in certain townships of the county and to otherwise conform to the statute (R.S. 1923, 47-101, et seq., now G.S. 1949, 47-101, et seq.) in accord with the prayer of petitions, alleged to have been signed by the requisite number of qualified electors, including the plaintiff, which had been presented to the defendants. Plaintiff commenced the action after the board had failed to act on such petitions on the theory his interest therein was of such nature he could maintain it in his individual capacity. There  as here  the defendants challenged his right to do so. This court in holding the point was well taken and in dismissing the action said:
*565 Nothing would be gained by laboring the allegations of the petition in the case at bar. It suffices to say that pleading shows upon its face that the plaintiffs are seeking to compel the defendants to proceed to perform certain alleged public duties under a statute enacted for the protection of the public welfare, public health, and public safety in the exercise of the police power of the state, and that nowhere in such pleading does it appear that they have any interest in the subject matter in litigation different than that of the public generally. The fact they identify themselves in the petition as barbers in no way distinguishes them from other citizens in attempting to compel the defendants to comply with what they deem to be the requirements of a statute enacted for the purposes heretofore indicated. Thus, upon application of the rule announced in the decisions to which we have heretofore referred, it becomes clear that plaintiffs lack legal capacity to bring the action, that the motion to quash should be sustained upon such premise, and that the case must be dismissed without giving consideration to other grounds of such motion, touching the merits of the cause, which can only be given proper consideration in a proceeding brought by a party who has the right to maintain it.
It is so ordered.
SMITH, J., not participating.