Case Name: HARRIS v. SIMS ET AL.
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1921-11-17
Citations: 118 S.C. 1
Docket Number: 10754
Parties: HARRIS v. SIMS ET AL.
Judges: • Mr. Justice Watts concurs.
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 118
Pages: 1–6

Head Matter:
HARRIS v. SIMS ET AL.
10754
(109 S. E. 411)
Physcians and Surgeons—Dentists May Advertise Painless Extraction op Teeth..—An advertisement reading, “Take out teeth absolutely painless,” is not a violation of Acts 1915, p. 218, providing for revocation of license of dentist who advertises “to practice dentistry without pain,” since teeth may be'extracted without pain, and this is not negatived by fact that pain may follow the operation.
Writ of certiorari by J. E. Harris to review the findings of B. F. Sims and others as the State Board of Dental Examiners, revoking his license as a dentist. From order dismissing petition Harris, the petitioner, appeals.
Messrs. Moffatt & Marion and Benet, Shand & McGowan, for appellant,
cite: Prosecution brought under 29 Stat. 218; Act in violation of 14th Amend., Const. U. S. and Art. I, Sec. 5, Const. S. C., 1895: 141 Pac., 132; 51 L. R. A. (N. S.) 958; 127 U S., 678; 32 E. Ed., 253; 49 L. R. A., 181; 1 Tied. Police Power, Sec. 3; 1 Cranch, 137; 17 N. E., 786; 114 Pac., 962; p. R. A., 1915A, 691; 95 N. E., 995; 19 Pa'c., 237; 3 P. R. A. (N. S.) 896; 25 App. Cas., 443 (P. C.); 161 S. W. 1169; 54 P. R. A. 415; 47 P. R. A. (N. S.) 1063; 162 S. W. 796. Cases cited by Circuit Judge not in point-. 242 U. S., 344; 129 U. S., 114; 82 S. C„ 231; 111 S. C., 213; 48 Atl., 803 (R. P); 114 Pac., 962; 27 Cal. App., 79; 68 Ela., 4; 228 Mo., 25.
Mr. Samuel M. Wolfe, Attorney General, for respondents,
cites: Court will not interfere with finding of Board unless shown to be arbitrary or capricious-. 89 S. C., 472; or wholly unsitpported by evidence: 97 S. C., 484; 86 S. C., 451; 52 S. C., 298; 79 S. C., 246; 11 C. J., 120; 24 S. C., 507; 24 S. C„ 363; 36 S C., P. 29; 20 S. C„ 367; 11C. J., 198, 194. Grounds for revocation of license in general terms does not invalidate statute: 114 Pac., 962, P. R. A. 1915A, 691; 95 N. E., 995; 78 N. E., 228; 117 N. W. 1116; 1 P. R. A. (N. S.) 811; 43 P. R. A. (N. S.) 911; 129 Pac., 1128; 108 N. W„ 720; 9 Ann. Cas., 125; 26 N. W., 123; 123 N. W., 1074; 128 S. W. 196; 119 N. W., 17; 10 Wend., 449 ; 48 Atl., 802; 135 S. W., 631; 158 Pac., 982; 159 Pac., 769; 159 Pac., 801; 109 N. W., 522.
November 17, 1921.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Cothran.
Of the many grounds upon which the State Board revoked the petitioner's license to practice dentistry, the only one sustained by the Circuit Judge was the fact that the petitioner advertised his ability to extract teeth without pain. This the Circuit Judge held was a violation of the statute (Acts 1915, p. 218), which in effect prohibits an advertisement "To practice dentistry without pain." The correctness of his conclusion upon this point is practically the only issue in this appeal.
The practice of dentistry includes numerous separate and distinct branches and 'Operations. Some of the branches are conducted without pain, and some of the operations in a branch that is fraught with pain may be performed without pain. To lay claim "to practice dentistry without pain" is universally inclusive in its character, embracing all branches and all operations, and comes within the inhibition of the statute. To profess to conduct a certain branch of dentistry, or a certain operation in a branch without pain, is not only not within the inhibition of the statute, but is susceptible of absolute demonstration as a fact. It may not be a matter of which the Court may take judicial cognizance, but it is a fact which a judicial utterance cannot make otherwise, that in the advance of the science the process of extracting teeth is daily accomplished without pain or consciousness of the fact. The fact that pain may follow the operation does not at all negative the fact that the extraction was painless.
The judgment in my opinion should be reversed.
• Mr. Justice Watts concurs.