holding that the invalidity of a provision for a de novo trial in superior court in the appeal section of an act did not affect the validity of the remainder of the appeal section
How later courts described this case
- holding that the invalidity of a provision for a de novo trial in superior court in the appeal section of an act did not affect the validity of the remainder of the appeal section
- unconstitutionality of provision for de novo trial in superior court in appeal section of an act did not render remainder of appeal section invalid
- severing an entire sentence
- cited by the majority at 295
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Mallery, J.
(dissenting)—The appellant is admittedly qualified for a license. It is denied upon the ground that too many licenses are bad. The act in question does not provide for certificates of convenience and necessity, as it would have done if the policy adopted by the legislature was to prevent competition. Deliberate monopoly through licensing ought not to be established by judicial legislation.
I dissent.