Case Name: State of Ohio ex rel. The Attorney General v. The Hygeia Medical College
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1899-03-28
Citations: 60 Ohio St. 122
Docket Number: 
Parties: State of Ohio ex rel. The Attorney General v. The Hygeia Medical College.
Judges: 
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 60
Pages: 122–124

Head Matter:
State of Ohio ex rel. The Attorney General v. The Hygeia Medical College.
“A medical institution in good standing” — Determined by State Medical Board.
1. Whether a diploma presented, by one who desires a certificate authorizing him to practice medicine is from “a medical institution in good standing” is to be determined, in the first instance, not by the court, but by the Board of Medical Registration and Examination.
2. An institution incorporated for the purpose of “the education of suitable persons in the art and science of curing diseases by the use of air, baths, electricity, heat, magnetism, massage and all other resources of nature” does not offend against the law of its creation by imparting instruction concerning the administering of drugs.
(Decided March 28, 1899.)
In Quo Warranto.
The petition charges that the defendant, being a corporation formed for the purpose, as shown by the articles of its incorporation, ‘ ‘of the education of suitable persons in the art and science of curing diseases by the use of air, baths, electricity, heat, magnetism, massage and all other resources of nature,” had violated the provisions of section 3726, Revised Statutes, because it had not acquired real and personal property of the value of $5,000, and fraudulently representing to the state authorities that it had acquired property of that value, and that after the passage of the act of February 27, 1896, “To regulate the practice of medicine” (92 O. L., 44) the defendant did, in violation of the provisions of that act, grant to numerous persons diplomas conferring upon them degrees and honors in medicine, surgery and midwifery, without reference to the course of study pursued or to the attainments of those upon whom such degrees and honors were conferred; and prays that it be ousted from its franchises.
The answer denies all the allegations of the petition with respect to the offenses of the defendant. The case is submitted upon the evidence.
F. S. Monnett, Attorney-General, and G. O. Blankner, Asst. Atty. General, for the state.
A. M. Warner, for defendant.

Opinion:
By the Court:
1. The evidence shows that the real and personal property of the defendant is of the value of at least five thousand dollars, and the allegation of the petition in that respect fails.
2. The allegations founded on the act of February 27, 1896, "To regulate the practice of medicine" (92 O. L., 44) show a misconception of the provisions of the act. The purpose of these allegations and the evidence offered in their support is to show that the defendant is not a "medical institute in good standing" because of the insufficiency of its cur riculum and the incompetency of its instructors. By the terms of section 4403c of the act whether such an institution is "in good standing"is to be determined in the first instance, not by the court, but by the Board of Medical Registration and Examination. The requirement that it shall issue to the holder of a diploma the certificate entitling him to practice medicine is upon the express condition that the diploma shall be from a medical institution "in good standing, as determined by the board."
3. Nor is there merit in the contention that the defendant should be ousted because the course of instruction exceeds that contemplated by its articles of incorporation. It is not made to appear that any subject now taught is beyond "the resources of nature." Nor should we be able to find authority or reason to support the conclusion that an institution of this general character must secure an amendment of its charter whenever it may be thought best to add a new subject to'its curriculum.
Petition dismissed.