Case Name: STEBBINS v. STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1941-05-21
Citations: 297 Mich. 676
Docket Number: Calendar No. 41,060
Parties: STEBBINS v. STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY.
Judges: Sharpe, C. J., and Chandler, J., concurred with Wiest, J.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 297
Pages: 676–685

Head Matter:
STEBBINS v. STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY.
1. Mandamus — Registration with Board op Pharmacy — Construction op Statutes.
Under 1913 aet requiring State board of pharmacy to register any , person who has been an assistant druggist 25 years last past which was amended in 1933 so as to carry the same language, petitioner who in 1939 had had 33 years and 10 months of practical experience in a retail drug store, compounding, dispensing and retailing drugs and medicines, was entitled to writ of mandamus to compel board to grant certificate of registration as against contention that registration under such X>rovision was limited to applicants who had had 25 years’ experience prior to 1913 (Aet No. 403, Pub. Acts 1913, as amended by Aet No. 141, Pub. Acts 1933).
2. Costs — Mandamus—Public Question — Construction op Statutes.
No costs are allowed in mandamus proceeding to compel State board of pharmacy to grant certificate of registration where principal question was the construction of a regulatory statute, such question being of public moment (Act No. 403, Pub. Acts 1913, as amended by Aet No. 141, Pub. Acts 1933).
McAllister, J., dissenting.
Petition by William M. Stebbins for a writ of mandamus to compel the State Board of Pharmacy to issue him a certificate as a registered pharmacist.
Submitted October 29, 1940.
(Calendar No. 41,060.)
Writ granted May 21, 1941.
Kelley, Eger & Kelley, for petitioner.
Thomas Read, Attorney General, and Edmund E. Shepherd and Kenneth G. Prettie, Assistants Attorney General, for defendant.

Opinion:
Wiest, J.
I am of the opinion the writ should issue.
December 18, 1939, when petitioner applied for registration, he had had 33 years, 10 months of practical experience in a retail drug' store, compounding, dispensing and retailing drugs and medicines.
Act No. 403, Pub. Acts 1913 (2 Comp. Laws 1929, § 6860), granted right of registration "to any person who has been an assistant druggist twenty-five years last past." That act, as amended and in force in 1939, still carries that provision. (Comp. Laws Supp. 1940, § 6860, Stat. Ann. § 14.761.)
At the effective date of the 1913 act, petitioner had not been an assistant druggist for 25 years, and the attorney general contends "that despite the amendment of 1933, the words 'twenty-five years last past' refer to 25 years immediately prior to 1913," and "the 1933 amendment dates back to the 1913 act, and does not advance the 1913 act to 1933 or fix the period of 25 years last past from that date."
The 25-year provision is still in the statute as amended and speaks of present rights and we may not add the limitation sought by the attorney general.
Petitioner is entitled to registration and, if necessary, the writ will issue.
The question being of public moment there will be no costs.
Sharpe, C. J., and Chandler, J., concurred with Wiest, J.
Act No. 141, Pub. Acts 1933.—Reporter.