Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

102 Ala. 170

Harrison v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided November 15, 1893

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1893-11-15

Tried before the Hon. John S. Leeper. The case was tried by and before the judge of the county court, without the .intervention of a jury, on a charge against the defendant, for a violation of section 4078 of the Code as amended February 18th, 1891, (Acts 1890-91, p. 857) , which reads as follows ; “Anyperson practicing medicine or surgery in this State, without having first obtained a certificate of qualification from one of the authorized boards of medical examiners oi…

Relies on Lehman v. Robinson · Brooks v. State

Cited in Black's (1910)’s definition of “Doctor”

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1893-11-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently November 1946

9 state decisions

40189319001910192019301940decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

HARALSON, J.

¶1The only defense the defendant made to the accusation preferred against him was, that he did not violate said act, because he was- exempted from its penalties by its proviso, in that he had practiced medicine in Shelby county, Alabama, for five years, continuously, prior to the time when said act of 18th of February, 1891, went into effect.

¶2The contention on the part of the State, and under which the conviction must be sustained, if at all, is, that the word, physician, as used in the proviso of the act, does not mean the same thing as the words, “person practicing medicine,” as employed in the first sentence of the act; or, in other words, that a.physician is not the same thing, in the meaning of the enactment, as a person practicing medicine.

¶3Words are to be construed in their popular sense — the plain sense in which the people generally understand them — unless it plainly appears from the writing in which they appear, that they were intended to be emnloyed in some other sense. — Lehman, Durr & Co. v. Robinson, 59 Ala. 234; 2 Brick. Dig; 206, § 60.

¶4*173Bouvier defines the word, physician, to mean, “A person who has received the degree of Doctor of Medicine from an incorporated institution : one lawfully engaged in the practice of medicine.” — 18 Amer. & Fng. Encyc. of Law, 427. This definition does not confine the class to those who have graduated at a medical college, but includes, as well, all who arc lawfully engaged in the practice of medicine, whether graduates or not. The word in its popular sense means, “one who professes or practices' medicine, or the healing art; a doctor.” — Worcester.

¶5The words, “person practicing medicine” and “doctor and physician,” as employed in the act under consideration, refer to one of the same class of persons, and are used interchangeably. Section 4078 before its amendment, did not contain the word, doctor, or, physician, but the general designation, “any person practicing medicine.” Construing this section, in Brooks v. The State, 88 Ala. 125, this court used those words, as synonymous with the word physician. To do otherwise in construing this act, would make it a delusion and a snare.

¶6The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the defendant discharged.

¶7Reversed and rendered.

/102/ala/170 · .json · Public domain