Opinion
Argued May 15, 1934 —
Decided September 27, 1934.
On appeal from the Supreme Court, in which the following per curiam was filed:
"The writ brings up certain proceedings had by the state board of medical examiners of the State of New Jersey whereat the board adopted a resolution setting out the requirements to be met by a class A medical college in seeking a license under chapter 184 ( Pamph. L. 1924), to operate as such a college; but the prosecutor's brief is exclusively an attack upon the statute itself. The summation of the brief is as follows:
"`It is respectfully urged that chapter 184 of the laws of 1924 should be declared unconstitutional and the action of the state board of medical examiners of the State of New Jersey in fixing such requirements, set aside,' and the approach is by four points respectively as follows: (1) There is no power in the state to compel any privately conducted school to meet any requirements unless the school be conducted in a manner inimical to the public health, public safety or public morals; (2) the act of 1924, chapter 184, constitutes an unlawful delegation of legislative authority; (3) the act of 1924 constitutes unlawful special or class legislation; (4) the act of 1924 violates article 14, section 1 of the constitution of the United States.
"The statute was under like attack by the prosecutor in State Board of Medical Examiners of New Jersey v. College of Mecca of Chiropractic, Inc., Prosecutor, 6 N.J. Mis. R. 677; affirmed ( Court of Errors and Appeals), 106 N.J.L. 602, on the opinion below. This court held in that case that the requirements of the statute were just and reasonable regulations; that the legislature was within its rights in passing the act and that the act `does not offend against any constitutional provision.' That holding is, we consider, dispositive of all points presented on the prosecutor's brief and, inasmuch as the opinion was adopted by the Court of Errors and Appeals, it stands as an adjudication which this court will not disturb.
"The writ of certiorari is dismissed, with costs."
For the appellant, J. Raymond Tiffany.
For the respondent, David T. Wilentz, attorney-general, and Robert Peacock, assistant attorney-general.
The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered in the Supreme Court.
For affirmance — THE CHANCELLOR, CHIEF JUSTICE, TRENCHARD, PARKER, HEHER, PERSKIE, VAN BUSKIRK, KAYS, HETFIELD, DEAR, WELLS, JJ. 11.
For reversal — None.