to issue diplomas or certificates to them, authorizing them to prac tise and recover compensation therefor.56 Generally, both a state society and county societies are provided for, the state society being composed of delegates from the county societies.57 And every physician and surgeon is required to become a member of the society of his county within a limited time, or forfeit his license.58 Such societies are authorized to make regulations and by-laws for their government and control,59 the only restriction being that they must not be contrary to or inconsistent with the Constitution or laws of the state, or of the United States, and that those of the county societies shall not be repugnant to those of the state societies. They may make rules and regulations relative to the admission and expulsion of members;61 and a fee may be demanded from physicians and surgeons on initiation to the county societies. 62 And they may refuse to admit persons whose acts, character, or qualifications are such that they would not be entitled to retain membership after admission;ea but those are the only grounds warranting a refusal, and they must be affirmatively established to justify it. The object of such so

"See Towle v. Marrett, 3 Me. 22, 14 Am. Dec. 206; Harrison v. Jones, 80 Ala. 412; People ex rel. Gray v. Medical Soc. 24 Barb. 570; People ex rel. Coventry v. Medical Soc. 18 Wend. 539; People ex rel. Dunnel v. Medical Soc. 3 Wend. 426; Fawcett v. Charles, 13 Wend. 473; Raynor v. State, 62 Wis. 289, 22 N. W.

430.

See People ex rel. Dunnel v. Med ical Soc. 3 Wend. 426; People ex rel. Coventry v. Medical Soc. 18 Wend. 539. A statute providing that each of the colleges of medicine in the state may elect a delegate to represent its college in the medical society of the state applies only to those institutions which have been established for the special purpose of advancing the science of medicine, and does not apply to a college established for instruction in the languages, liberal arts, and sciences, though it has a medical faculty. People ex rel. Coventry v. Medical Soc. 18 Wend. 539. People ex rel. Dunnel v. Medical Soc. 3 Wend. 426.

Ibid; People ex rel. Gray Medical Soc. 24 Barb. 570; Fawcett v. Charles, 13 Wend. 473.

People ex rel. Dunnel v. Medical Soc. 3 Wend. 426; People ex rel. Gray v. Medical Soc. 24 Barb. 570.

People ex rel. Gray v. Medical Soc. 24 Barb. 570; Fawcett v. Charles, 13 Wend. 473.

Where a university was entitled to confer degrees in surgery and medicine, and a corporation was empowered to summon all persons practising surgery and examine them, and admit or reject them, and, in case they should be contumacious, to impose a certain penalty on them, the granting by the university of degrees in surgery to persons who practised within the bounds would not exempt them from the supervision of the corporation; and the power given to the corporation to impose a penalty upon the contumacious does not prevent it from proceeding against them in a court of law. University of Glasgow v. Facul ty of Physicians & Surgeons, 7 Clark & F. 958.

"People ex rel. Dunnel v. Medical Soc. 3 Wend. 426.

Ex parte Paine, 1 Hill, 665. "People ex rel. Bartlett v. Medical Soc. 32 N. Y. 192.

A medical society cannot refuse membership to a duly qualified applicant be cause, at an antecedent period before his application, he had not observed certain conventional regulations adopted for the government of the society, by which he had never agreed to abide, and with reference to which he may have been ignorant. Ibid.

cieties, however, is the diffusion of science and particularly of the knowledge of the healing art; and the establishment of a tariff of prices for medical services is not a legitimate object of their creation, and is an interference with the private rights of their members, and is invalid.65 And such societies are not educational associations within the meaning of an exemption of such associations from taxation, though they maintain public medical libraries and reading rooms.66

440. Diploma from medical school.-A common provision is that graduates of medical schools or colleges of a designated class shall be entitled on presentation of their diplomas to license to practise without examination. When a right to a license or exemption from examination is conferred on graduates of certain reputable schools, the question of reputability or good standing is not one of law, but of fact, for the board, involving investigation, judgment, and discretion;67 though the decision must be based upon just and fair principles, and not on personal motives.68 What is a reasonable limit to the inquiry is a judicial question;69 and the decision of boards of examiners must not be arbitrary, but must be based on inquiry and fact;70 the test question being whether or not proper medical knowledge was made to appear." But when, after full and fair examina

"People ex rel. Gray v. Medical Soc. 24 Barb. 570.

People ex rel. Medical Soc. v. Neff, 34 App. Div. 83, 53 N. Y. Supp. 1077.

"People ex rel. Sheppard v. Illinois Dental Examiners, 110 Ill. 180; Dental Examiners v. People, 123 Ill. 227, 13 N. E. 201; Iowa Eclectic Medical College Asso. v. Schrader, 87 Iowa, 659, 20 L. R. A. 355, 55 N. W. 24; State ex rel. Kirchgessner v. Board of Health, 53 N. J. L. 594, 22 Atl. 226; State ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. The Hygeia Medical College, 60 Ohio St. 122, 54 N. E. 86; Barmore v. State Medical Examiners, 21 Or. 301, 28 Pac. 8; State ex rel. Coffey v. Chittenden, 112 Wis. 569, 88 N. W. 587.

An act creating a board of dental examiners, and providing that an applicant for license to practise dentistry basing his claim upon a diploma from a reputable dental college is entitled to a license, confers upon the board the power and discretion to determine in case of applicants with diplomas whether they come within the provisions of the law, and whether the diplomas tendered by them emanate from a reputable college. Williams v. Dental Examiners, 93 Tenn. 619, 27 S. W. 1019.

Illinois Dental Examiners v. People, 123 Ill. 227, 13 N. E. 201.

Such a decision cannot stand when based upon rivalry between two dental colleges for the patronage of students, with a view to the injury of the one and the assistance of the other. Ibid.

State ex rel. Coffey v. Chittenden, 112 Wis. 569, 88 N. W. 587.

ToIowa Eclectic Medical College Asso. v Schrader, 87 Iowa, 659, 20 L. R. A. 355, 55 N. W. 24.

"See Gage v. New Hampshire Medical Soc. 63 N. H. 92, 56 Am. Rep. 492; Wright v. Lanckton, 19 Pick. 288.

And an attendance at a medical college for one day only during examination, upon which the person attending received a diploma therefrom, does not make him a graduate in medicine; and the registration of his diploma upon an affidavit showing such fact is not a legal registration which would entitle him to a re-registration under a statute providing therefor, upon proof that he was legally registered under an earlier statute. Metcalfe v. Michigan Bd. of Registration, 123 Mich. 661, 82 N. W. 512.

And the issue of a diploma by a school of osteopathy to a person who had not

tion, they arrive at a determination, their action will be held to be legal, though the court might have arrived at a different conclusion.72 When a board has exercised its discretion, however, by adopting a general rule as to what is a reputable school in good standing, it cannot then refuse to act in accordance with it;73 and where the statute itself defines a reputable or accredited school, the only question is whether or not the school under consideration falls within the definition.74 What is a reputable school must be determined from the

standpoint of men of scientific attainments in the line of work it represents, and not from that of mere laymen ;75 and "reputable" as used in such provisions must be taken in its ordinary sense, and as meaning worthy of repute or distinction, or held in esteem.76 The burden rests with the candidate to prove the good standing of his school. And if it is a school of another state, its charter must be proved.78 And though a board has no discretion to refuse a license to a graduate of a proper school, the question as to whether or not the diploma offered by the candidate is genuine, and whether or not it

was issued by an authorized school, is one for its decision." A graduate who has acquired the learning and received the training required by a medical school, a diploma from which is required to warrant his admission to practise, is not deprived of the right by the fact that by reason of some accident or oversight his diploma has never been actually received by him.80

441. Examinations.-The policy of the law generally has been to encourage collegiate medical education as a prerequisite to medical practice, an examination as to fitness being usually required only when a diploma from a reputable medical school could not be produced. So effectual has this policy been that there has been but little call on the courts to declare the law with reference to examinations. It is thought, however, that, in analogy with the rules with reference to other similar examinations, the discretion of the board of examiners is absolute, both as to methods of examination and the result, so long as it is honestly and fairly exercised with a view to ascertaining fitness.81 But examinations are deemed for the benefit of both the public and the candidate, so that "may" has been construed to mean "must," in a statute providing for the examination of college graduates.82

442. Previous practice.-A statutory provision entitling one to a certificate, or exempting one from examination as to his competency as a physician or surgeon who has previously practised a stated time, refers to legal practice, and does not include practice in violation of law.83 A practitioner within the meaning of such provisions is one

Smith v. Kentucky Dental Examiners, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 25, 67 S. W. 999; Townshend v. Gray, 62 Vt. 373, 8 L. R. A. 112, 19 Atl. 635.

It is proper to compare the seal of a medical institution, and signatures of officers thereof to a diploma, with the seal and signatures attached to a diploma received from the same institution, on the question of the genuineness of the instrument, although the witness never saw the officers write their names. Finch v. Gridley, 25 Wend. 469.

80 Rider v. Ashland County, 87 Wis. 160, 58 N. W. 236.

And where a physician has lost his diploma, its grant may be shown by the testimony of an officer of the medical college by which it was granted. Halliday v. Butt, 40 Ala. 178.

edge and practice of dentistry to all applicants who shall undergo a satisfac tory examination, and receive a majority of the votes of the board upon such proficiency, the courts cannot intervene and direct the board to issue a certificate to one held by a majority of the board not to have passed a satisfactory examination. Ewbank v. Turner (N. C.) 46 S. E. 508.

State v. Knowles, 90 Md. 646, 49 L. R. A. 695, 45 Atl. 877.

83 State v. Wilson, 61 Kan. 791, 60 Pac 1054; Nicholson v. State, 100 Ala. 132, 14 So. 746; Driscoll v. Com. 93 Ky. 393, 20 S. W. 431; Hargan v. Purdy, 93 Ky. 424, 20 S. W. 432; State v. Vandersluis, 42 Minn. 129, 6 L. R. A. 119, 43 N. W. 789; State ex rel. Eberts v. Ohio Medical Board, 60 Ohio St. 21, 53 N. 81 Where the statute provides that a E. 298; State ex rel. Smith v. Dental board of dental examiners shall grant Examiners, 31 Wash. 492, 72 Pac. 110. a certificate of proficiency in the knowl