The evening times. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1906-1914, 1909-04-24
DR.. Chandler Is Entitled to
Participate in the Boards
Proceedings
FORMER MEMBER Was NOT A
DE- FACT0 OFFICER SAYS COURT
Chandler Had a Color OF Title 10 the
Office and the Writ Of Mandamus
Was the Proper Remedy to Enforce
His Rights.

Bismarck, y. D., April 24-The fa-
nous dental board case was decided
by the supreme court of North Da-
kota on Friday afternoon when a deci-
sion was handed down affirming the
verdict of the district court of Cass
county This case involved seat on
the state dental board held by DR..
Frank w. Chandler of Valley City.
The case was in the nature of a
mandamus against the remaining
members of the board, who refused to
recognize DR.. Chandler as member.
Judge Pollock of Fargo decided in
favor of Dr.. Chandler. ordering that
he be allowed to take part in the
boards work. but from this decision
the board took an appeal. The SUI
preme court now decides that DR..
Chandler is rightfully member of
the board and orders that he be SO
recognized.
The members of the board when
this case was started were Sweet of
Minot. Startling of Fargo, Mcdonald OF
jamestown and Brownlee of Minot.
Since that time. however. DR.. Swet's
term has expired and DIR. Eckman has
been appointed in his place.
The syllabus of the supreme court
in the action follows:
Frank w. Chandler. respondent. VS..
H. l.. Startling, ct AL. as members of
the state boar dof dental examiners,
appellants.
!. In a mandamus proceeding for
the purpose of compelling recognition
of his rights. brought by one having
a prima facie title to an Office bv vir-
tue of certificate in due form is
sued by the appointive power, it is
not necessary that the action should
be prosecuted in the name of the state
as the plaintiff has special interest
therein within the meaning of section
7S0S revised codes Of 1905.
.. In such a proceeding the prior
incumbent Of tEe office is not neces-
sary party defendant.
3. Mandamns is proper remedy,
under the facts set forth in the al
tentative writ to compel defendants.
who are members of the state board
of dental examiners, to recognize
plaintiffs prima facie right as an ap-
pointee to fill an alleged vacancy on
such board, to sit thereon and to par
ticipate in the transactions of its busi-
ness.
4. In such proceeding. the ulti-
mate right and title to the office can
not be litigated, but plaintiffs prima
facie right and title thereto is con-
elusive, except as to de facto Off
Ger.
5. The allegations in the alterna-
tive writ. which are not challenged by
proper denials in the answer, show
that a vacancy existed in the office
at and prior to plaintiffs appointment
and hence that one "R" who was a
former incumbent of the office. was
not a lie factO officer as he did not
have even color of title thereto.
6. The answer admits the facts
showing plaintiffs prima facie title to
the Office and walls to properly deny
any issuable fact alleged in the alter
native writ. or to al!ese facts suffi-
cient to constitute defense.
Syllabus by the court.
Appeal from district court Cass
county. Pollock. J.
Action by Frank w. Chandler VS..
II. l.. Startling. ct al. as members
OF the state board of dental examin-
ers. From an order sustaining plain
tiff's demurrer to defendants answer
and granting a peremptory writ of
mandamus as prayed for by plain
tiff. defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
III. II. Miller for appellants.
Bangs. Cooley & Hamilton for re-
spondents.