Court Opinion

ID: 9687950
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:54:55.070706+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:33.665130
License: Public Domain

TEIGEN, Chief Justice
(concurring specially).
I concur. However, I believe that Article V, Rule 5, adopted by the State Board of Architecture, is void. It alters, adds to, extends and enlarges upon the statutes governing the practice of architecture. It is an attempt to permit that which the statute prohibits. Section 43-03-09, N.D.C.C., provides:
“No person shall practice architecture as a profession in this state unless he has obtained from the board a certificate of registration and is registered as an architect.”
*413Section 1-01-28, N.D.C.C., defines a person as follows:
“The word ‘person’, except when used by way of contrast, shall include not only a human being, but a body politic or corporate.”
The word person, prima facie, in absence of a statute limiting its meaning, includes both natural and artificial persons. 18 Am. Jur.2d, Corporations, Section 20, page 569.
The rule adopted by the board recognizes a corporation may not be registered as an architect but, nevertheless, it allows corporations to practice architecture under named conditions without being registered. This is contrary to law.
The power of the State Board of Architecture to adopt rules and regulations is limited by statute to three areas (Section 43-03-08, N.D.C.C.): (1) To govern its proceedings; (2) For the examination of candidates for registration; and (3) For the regulation of the practice of architecture. The statute also admonishes that such rules and regulations shall be consistent with law.
The board, under the guise of its exercise of the power to make rules and regulations, has promulgated a rule which, in my opinion, is inconsistent with and subverts the Act which it is to administer. This it may not do.
“Legislation may not be enacted by an administrative agency under the guise of its exercise of the power to make rules and regulations by issuing a rule or regulation which is inconsistent or out of harmony with, or which alters, adds to, extends or enlarges, subverts, or impairs, limits, or restricts the act being administered.” 1 Am.Jur.2d, Administrative Law, Section 132, page 944.
The defendant corporation is not authorized to practice architecture in this State and, therefore, it violated the law when it advertised and held itself out as being engaged in the practice of architecture.