Harrison v. State

102 Ala. 170
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedNovember 15, 1893
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 102 Ala. 170 (Harrison v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Harrison v. State, 102 Ala. 170 (Ala. 1893).

Opinion

HARALSON, J.

The 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.

The 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.

Words 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.

[173]*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.

The 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.

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

Reversed and rendered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Texas Attorney General Reports, 1950
Hamilton v. City of Anniston
27 So. 2d 857 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1946)
Guy v. State
32 S.W.2d 460 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1930)
State v. Miller
229 N.W. 569 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1930)
Underwood Typewriter Co. v. Marengo County Bank
82 So. 158 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1919)
Sellers v. Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co.
208 S.W. 397 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1918)
Locke v. Ionia Circuit Judge
151 N.W. 623 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1915)
Birmingham Railway, Light & Power Co. v. Green
58 So. 801 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1912)
Fulton v. State
54 So. 688 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1911)
Crook v. Commissioners Court
39 So. 383 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1905)
Montgomery Beer Bottling Works v. Gaston
126 Ala. 425 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1899)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
102 Ala. 170, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harrison-v-state-ala-1893.