Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1905-09-22

IN THe SUPREME COURT or THE
STATE or NEvApA.
&tate Of Nevada, Ex-Rel Joseph
WyerhorJt, Reiatov and Appellant:
s. 1. Lee, sscretary Of the Nevada
). STATE eoard Of Medical Examiners,
Respondent.
Appeal from the Third judicial Dis
trict Court in and for Nye County,
Hon. Peter Breen, District JUDGE.
George A. Clark, Attorney Tor Appel
WiIiiam Forman, and w. 3. Pittman,
Attorneys for Respondent.
Opinion by Norcross, J.
This is an appeal from Judgment
and from an order sustaining demur;
rer to appellants petition to the Third
Judicial District Court of the State u
Nevada. in and for the county OF
Nye. for a writ of mandate to pc ul-
rected to respondent requiring him. as
Secretary of the State Board OF Med
ical Examiners, to issue to appellant
a temporary certificate emitting ap-
pellant to practice his profession OF
medicine and surgery in this State
until the pext regular meeting OF the
State Board of Medical Examiners.
Relator, by his petition, claims 20
be qualified to have issued to him by
the State Board of Medical Examiners
a certificate or license entitleing him
to practice his profession in the State
of Nevada, and that under the pro-
visions of Section 4, of an Act entltl-
ed: An Act providing for the Great
ton of a State Board of Medical Elk
aminers, and to regulate the practice
of medicine and surgery in the State
of Nevada, approved March 10, 1899,
Compiled Statutes Sec. 1542), 1t IS
the duty of the respondent, as Sec
rotary of the State Board OF Medical
Examiners, to issue him temporary
certificate emitting relator to practice
until the next regular meeting OF the
Board.
The only material question present
ed upon this appeal is whether or not
that portion of the said Act OF 1899.
providing for the issuance of temper
rary certificatec by the Secretary OF
the Board of Medical Examiners has
now any force as a part OF the law OF
this State regulating the practice of
medicine and surgery.
The Legislature of this State at its
last session passed an Act entitled
An Act regulating the practice OF
medicine, surgery, and obstetrics IN
the State of Nevada; providing for
the appointment of State Board OF
Medical Examiners and defining theis
duties; providing for the issuing OF
licenses to practice medicine; dehn
ing the practice of medicine; defining
certain misdemeanOrs and providing
penalties, and repeating all other
Acts, or parts of Acts, in conflict
herewith" Approved March 4, 1905
(Stats. 1905, p. 3d.
The court below held that the effect
of the Act of 1905, was. to repeal the
Act of 1899. and as the Act of 1905
contained no provision for the grant
: ing of temporary certificates to ap
plicants to practice medicine. surger.
or obstetrics, there remained nothin'
upon which to bace writ of mandate
The correctness of the decision
of the trial court is maintained b!
counsel for respondent, while counse
for appellant takes the position tina
the provisions of the Act of 1899, au
thorizing the issuance Of temporar,
certificates by the Secretary OF tn.
State Board of Medical Examiners
is not in conflict with any provision o
the Act of 1905, and, as the lattel
Act does not contain any clause ex
pressly repeating the Act of 1899. tn
provision in question is still in force
A careful comparison Of the twt
Acts, however. leads us to the con
clusion that, under a we'll settled rul
Of statutory construction, the entlr
Act OF 1899 is repealed ~ he Act o
1905,
The Act of 1905 is comprehen
sive measure, complete in itself, re
vising the whole subject matter o
the Act of 1899, and evidently intend
ed as substitute for it, although
contains no express words to that e
feet. In the case of Bartlett ct al. vi
King. Executor. IL Mass. SGT. the ru1
applicable to this case was stated 8
follows: "A subsequent statute, r,
vising the whole subject matter OF
former one, and evidently intended 3
a substitute for it. although it col
tains no express words to that effec
must, on the principles of law. as we
as in reason and common sense
operate to repeal the former" Til
Court has heretofore twice quote
with approval the rule as above d,
clared in the Bartlett case and it
supported by abundant authority fro
other courts. Thorpe vs. Schoolfn
New, Is: State vs. Rogers. 10 Ne
319; Mack VS. Jastro. leg CAL, 49,
State Board OF Health VS. Ross, IS
ILL.,, 81: see also, rs Am. & Eng. En-
L. I'd Ed. 731 and authorities cite
in note ~
The case of the State Board I
Health vs. Ross, supra, is particular
in point and we quote a brief extraa
from the opinion in that case: "A
examination Of the Act of 1887. show
that 1t Is = complete revision Of I'll
whole subject matter Of the former Al
of 1881, is complete and perfe<
system in itself. and, as we have see
was an Act to regulate the practice /
medicine in the State Of. Illinois an
gave power to ehe Board Of Healt