Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 16.pdf/758

 NOTES OF RECENT CASES OF IMPORTANCE FROM THE NATIONAL REPORTER SYSTEM. (Copies of the pamphlet Reporters containing full reports of any of these decisions may be secured from the West Publishing Company, St. Paul, Minnesota, at 25 cents each. In ordering, the title of the desired case should be given as well as the citation of volume and page of the Reporter in which it is printed.)

ATTORNEY'S LIEN. (EXEMPTIONS AS AGAINST SUCH LIEN.) SUPREME COURT OK MISSISSIPPI.

In Halsell v. Turner, 36 Southern Reporter 531, it was contended that ал attorney's lien does not apply to the proceeds of a judg ment in an action for the recovery of wages, on the ground that wages are exempt. The court says that a lien which an attorney has against his client applies to the money in his hands, and cannot be defeated on the ground that the client's interest therein might be exempt from seizure under legal proceedings instituted by third persons. The attorney has a prior lien granted by law and growing out of the relation between him and his client. BARBERS. (EXAMINATION — LICENSE — CONSTITU TIONAL LAW.) SUPREME COURT OF OREGON.

In State v. Briggs, 77 Pacific Reporter 750, the constitutionality of a statute (Laws Oregon 1903, p. 27), providing for the exam ination and licensing of barbers, was ques tioned. Though the law defines what shall constitute a barber, it does not prescribe the standard or degree of knowledge, learning, •experience or qualification which shall be re quired before applicants shall be licensed to practise or follow the trade or calling, but leaves that matter to be determined by the board of examiners. This, it was argued, renders the act void because it is a delega tion of legislative authority, and vests in the examining board arbitrary and unregulated powers. It is sometimes said in opinions and in law books that, where a statute under takes to regulate the licensing of callings, trades or professions, the extent of the qual ifications required of the licensee must be determined by the judgment of the Legisla ture; but this does not mean that the Legis lature must necessarily provide in the act it

self the exact qualifications required. It may delegate that power to a board or com mission created and authorized by it, which, in the exercise of the authority vested in it, acts on behalf of the State; its conclusions and judgments, so long as exercised within the limits of the law, being the acts of the State, and binding as such. The nature and character of the profession, trade, or calling intended to be licensed or regulated often de mands technical knowledge and learning in order to designate accurately the qualifica tions which should be possessed by those designing to follow it. In the nature of things, this is a matter outside the ordinary scope of legislative wisdom. The prescrib ing of the proper qualifications of applicants for licenses by some agent of the State, learned im such profession or calling, is not legislation, but rather the exercise of a mere administrative power. A law, when it comes from the Legislature, must be complete, but there are many matters affecting its execu tion and relating to methods of procedure, which the Legislature may properly delegate to some ministerial board or officer, and pre scribing the qualifications of persons who shall be licensed to follow or engage in the practice of a given trade or profession is one of them. This principle the court regards as directly supported by Blue v. Beach, 155 Ind. 121, 133, 56 N. E. 89, 50 L. R. A. 64, 80 Am. St. Rep. 195; Port Royal Mining Co. v. Hagood, 30 S. C. 519. 9 S. E. 686, 3 L. R. A. 841; Isenhour?'. State, 157 Ind. 517, 62 N. E. 40, 87 Am. St. Rep. 228; Georgia Rail road г'. Smith et al., Railroad Commissioners 70 Ga. 694; United States v. Breen (С. С.) 4O Fed. 402; Barmore v. State Board of Medical Examiners, 21 Ore. 301, 28 Рас. Reporter, 8; People r. Dental Examiners, т то Ill. 180.