1. Boards of health. Exercising police power through municipal other; and an ordinance attempting to do ordinance when power has been vested so is void as far as it permits the transfer in board, see MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS, of buildings to a class requiring less ex§ 91 d. pense than that to which it belongs. New Orleans v. Sanford, L.R.A.1916A, 1228, 137 La. 628, 69 So. 35. (Annotated) § 2. Powers of. As regards epidemics, see post, § 4. As to disinfection of vessels, see post, § 11 Municipal liability for acts of health department, see MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS, §§ 298-302. Revocation of physician's license by board of Right to sue county boards of health, see see Towns, § 7 a. a. Local health officers acting under a general statute are representatives of the state. Nicholson v. Detroit, 56 L.R.A. 601,| 129 Mich. 246, 88 N. W. 695. b. The members of the board of health of the department of health of the city of New York were not changed from administrative to judicial officers by the provision of § 1173 of the Greater New York charter (3 Laws 1901, page 500, chap. 466) that the actions, proceedings, authority, and orders of such board of health shall at all times be regarded as in their nature judicial, and be treated as prima facie just and legal; the purpose of that provision being merely to invest the orders and proceedings of the board with the presumption that they were duly authorized, and were just and legal. People ex rel. Lodes v. Health Department, 13 L.R.A. (N.S.) 894, 189 N. Y. 187, 82 N. E. 187. a. A state board of health is a creation of statute, having no common-law powers, and has only such power as the statute confers. Mathews v. Board of Education, 54 L.R.A. 736, 127 Mich. 530, 86 N. W. 1036. b. The power and duty vested in county boards of health to protect the inhabitants of the state from contagious or infectious disease and to preserve the public health are of a public nature and of the highest importance and value. Forbes v. Board of Health, 13 L.R.A. 549, 28 Fla. 26, 9 So. 862. c. The powers of local boards of health should be construed so as to effectuate the purpose of the legislature which conferred them. Board of Health v. Kollman, 49 L.R.A. (N.S.) 354, 156 Ky. 351, 160 S. W. 1052. d. Local boards of health are given pow c. On a division of the city of Yonkers into five wards, with a supervisor from each by the amendment of 1892 to the city charter, the office of "the supervisor," who was a member of the board of health, disappeared, and the ward supervisors did not beers to prevent the outbreak as well as the come members of the board of health. People ex rel. Copcutt v. Board of Health, 23 L.R.A. 481, 140 N. Y. 1, 35 N. E. 320. d. Members of a board of health of a city are not local or municipal officers within Mich. Const. art. 15, § 14, providing for the election of such officers, but the board is a state agency. Davock v. Moore, 28 L.R.A. 783, 105 Mich. 120, 63 N. W. 424. e. No decision of a board of health, even if made on a hearing, can conclude a landowner upon the question of nuisance. Health Dept. v. Trinity Church, 27 L.R.A. 710, 145 N. Y. 32, 39 N. E. 833. spread of disease. Board of Health v. Kollman, 49 L.R.A. (N.S.) 354, 156 Ky. 351, 160 S. W. 1052. e. Under statutes making it a mandatory duty of the general council of every city having a certain population to appoint a board of health, and investing such boards of health with the same powers as are conferred upon county local boards of health, the powers of a city board of health are not derived solely from the general council, and it may therefore enact rules and regulations in addition to and inconsistent with the provisions of the city ordinance under which it acts. Board of Health v. Kollman, 49 L.R.A. (N.S.) 354, 156 Ky. 351, 160 S. W. 1052. f. An order made by two only of three members of an executive committee of a board of health, when the other member was not present, was invalid under Miss. Laws f. Yonkers, although excepted by N. Y. 1894, chap. 38, p. 33, prior to the amend-Laws 1885, chap. 270, § 1, from the proviment of 1898. Wilson v. Alabama G. S. R. Co. 52 L.R.A. 357, 77 Miss. 714, 28 So. 567. sions of the act, so far as it relates to the composition of boards of health and appointg. A municipal board of health with pow- ment of members thereof, is not excepted er to enact health ordinances cannot, in an from § 3, conferring general powers upon ordinance requiring the rat proofing of the such boards. Board of Health v. Copcutt, buildings in the city, which divides build- 23 L.R.A. 485, 140 N. Y. 12, 35 N. E. 443. ings into classes requiring different kinds g. In the absence of action by the muniof treatment, empower the health officer to cipal commission, a board of health may act transfer buildings from one class to an-under authority of a section of the city L.R.A. Comb. Dig.-306. I. Boards of health. charter empowering it to enact health ordinances, although another section provides for concentration of all legislative powers in the commission of council, and assigns to the department of public safety matters relating to public health, making it the duty of the commission council to pass such ordinances as may be necessary to maintain the health of the city. New Orleans v. Sanford, L.R.A.1916A, 1228, 137 La. 628, 69 So. 35. h. Boards of health in summary proceedings, without hearing the owner of the property, cannot make that a nuisance which is not in fact a nuisance, and have no jurisdiction to make any order or ordinance to abate an alleged nuisance, unless it is in fact a nuisance. People ex rel. Copcutt v. Board of Health, 23 L.R.A. 481, 140 N. Y. 1, 35 N. E. 320. § 3. Fund for. a. The consent of a municipality or its local officers or boards is not necessary to the validity of a tax to raise money which a board of health requires for the preservation of the public health, under legislative authority. Davock v. Moore, 28 L.R.A. 783, 105 Mich. 120, 63 N. W. 424. b. Mich. act Feb. 27, 1895, to establish a board of health for the city of Detroit, is not inoperative for failing to supply the means of carrying out its requirements or to provide any revenue for the board, as it provides that the board shall furnish an estimate annually to the comptroller, and his duties when estimates are thus made are provided for by the charter. Davock v. Moore, 28 L.R.A. 783, 105 Mich. 120, 63 N. W. 424. SEASES. Judicial notice of, see EVIDENCE, § 37 a. with contagious disease into adjoining a. The power given by statute to state and local boards of health is not exclusive of the inherent power of municipal corporations to relieve indigent sick persons in time of epidemic disease. Thomas v. Mason, 26 L.R.A. 727, 39 W. Va. 526, 20 S. E. 580. (Annotated) b. In an epidemic of smallpox or other dangerous contagious disease, the council of a city, town, or village has inherent power to provide for the medical treatment and care of poor persons therein resident. Thomas v. Mason, 26 L.R.A. 727, 39 W. Va. 526, 20 S. E. 580. (Annotated) III. Regulations to protect health. a. In general. § 5. Generally. Regulations of buildings as to, see BUILD- Carrier's liability where delivery is forbid Quarantine and inspection laws as regula- Requiring certificate of freedom from ven- Statute regulating business of plumbing, see Constitutionality of statute prohibiting sale Due Permitting occupant of lower berth in sleep- Prohibiting barbers working on Sunday, see cause of death as condition of giving Review by courts of ordinance for rat-proof ing of buildings, see COURTS, § 171 c. Pure food laws generally, see FOOD, II. CORPORATIONS, § 82 gl. Partial invalidity of health ordinance, see goods, rags, junk, etc., see MUNICIPAL Requiring inspection for steam boilers, see Requiring cutting of weeds, see MUNICIPAL III. Regulations to protect health. a. In general. Parties defendant to bill by board of health As to license of physicians, see PHYSICIANS In matters affecting schools, see SCHOOLS, Statute forbidding sale and distribution of Title of statute conferring powers on city Power of municipality with respect to dust b. The best scientific thought of the age d. The law-making power may provide for the public health and safety by such reasonable and proper measures as in creased knowledge may suggest. State v. Gravett, 55 L.R.A. 791, 65 Ohio St. 289, 62 N. E. 325. e. The rules and resolutions of a board of health have the force of legislative enactment. Kirk v. Wyman, 23 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1188, 83 S. C. 372, 65 S. E. 387. f. Regulations adopted by boards of health have the force and effect of legislative laws, when adopted by virtue of legislative authority. Blue v. Beach, 50 L.R.A. 64, 155 Ind. 121, 56 N. E. 89. g. The general assembly has power to authorize the commissioners of towns to pass by-laws intended to prevent the introduction of infectious or contagious diseases, and to preserve the public health. State v. Taft, 32 L.R.A. 122, 118 N. C. 1190, 23 S. E. 970. h. The occasional recurrence of smallpox in a city does not present an emergency for which the health commissioner may make and enforce rules not prescribed or approved by the legislative authority of the city. People ex rel. Jenkins v. Board of Education, 17 L.R.A. (N.S.) 709, 234 Ill. 422, 84 N. E. 1046. i. The police jury is without authority to amend, modify, or nullify an ordinance adopted by a parish board of health. Naccari v. Rappelet, 13 L.R.A. (N.S.) 640, 119 La. 272, 44 So. 13. j. That no method is provided for enforcing an order of a state board of health will not prevent its enforcement by the court, if its order might be of such a character that enforcement of it would result in the enforcement of that of the state board. State Bd. of Health v. St. Johnsbury, 23 L.R.A. (N.S.) 766, 82 Vt. 276, 73 Atl. 581. § 6. Fertilizer. a. The adoption by a board of health of an ordinance declaring the use of fish and shrimp-shell refuse as a fertilizer to be a nuisance dangerous to public health concludes the question whether such fertilizers can be safely used during the winter months, where it does not clearly appear that the action of the board is arbitrary. Naccari v. Rappelet, 13 L.R.A. (N.S.) 640, 119 La. 272, 44 So. 13. Burden of proving pollution of water by § 7. Sewage. sewage, see EVIDENCE, § 372 c. a. A board of health need not hear testimony before forbidding a municipality to discharge sewage into a stream which is a source of water supply, where the statute authorizes it to make a thorough investigation in such cases, and, if in its judgment the public health so requires, forbid the discharge of sewage into the stream. City v. Board of Health, 25 L.R.A. (N.S.) 589, 39 Mont. 405, 102 Pac. 696. § 8. Mines. Miles a. Regulations authorized by Colo. Const. art. 16, for the proper ventilation of mines, for escapement shafts, "and such other appliances as may be necessary to protect the health and secure the safety of the workmen therein," embrace only such reasonably necessary mechanical appliances as will secure the end in view, and do not include other kinds of health regulations. Re Morgan, 47 L.R.A. 52, 26 Colo. 415, 58 Pac, 1071. § 9. Disembarking passengers. a. To prohibit the landing, within an infected district, of healthy persons from a vessel coming from a foreign port, is within the power of the board of health under La. act No. 192 of 1898, which authorizes the board to provide for the general sanitation of the state and the regulation of the isolation of cases of infectious or contagious diseases, and also for a maritime and land quarantine against places infested with such disease. Compagni Francaise de Navigation a Vapeur v. State Bd. of Health, 56 L.R.A. 795, 51 La. Ann. 645, 25 So. 591, aff'd in 186 U. S. 380, 46 L. ed. 1209, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 811. b. An order of a board of health making it unlawful for any person to get off any boat or train in the state until after further orders of the board is void for unreasonableness so far as it affects persons com i III. Regulations to protect health. a. In general. ing into the state from noninfected places, although the order is made because of the existence of yellow fever at certain places. Wilson v. Alabama G. S. R. Co. 52 L.R.A. 357, 77 Miss. 714, 28 So. 567. § 10. Live stock. Proximate cause of loss to purchaser of diseased horse brought into state, see PROXIMATE CAUSE, § 19 c. a. A resolution of the state board of health without limitation or restriction, that no pig-pen shall be built or maintained within 100 feet of any street or inhabited house, is not a reasonable and legitimate exercise of the power conferred by Vt. Acts 1886, No. 93, § 6, and Vt. Acts 1892, No. 82, § 11, providing that the board shall have authority to promulgate and enforce such regulations for the better preservation of the public health in contagious and epidemic diseases, and regarding the causes which tend to their development and spread, as it shall judge necessary. State v. Speyer, 29 L.R.A. 573, 67 Vt. 502, 32 Atl. 476. § 11. Disinfection. a. A penal ordinance requiring secondhand clothing to be disinfected by fumigation, and requiring payment of a fixed price therefor according to the nature of the garment, must be deemed, in the absence of direct and unquestionable proof to the contrary, to be for the protection of the public health. Rosenbaum v. Newbern, 32 L.R.A. 123, 118 N. C. 83, 24 S. E. 1. b. A rule of the state board of health to disinfect baggage of all immigrants from other countries is invalid where the statute only authorizes such inspection in case of immigrants from a port or locality where a dangerous communicable disease exists. Hurst v. Warner, 26 L.R.A. 484, 102 Mich. 238, 60 N. W. 440. c. Under the Florida act of 1879 (chap. 3162) as amended by the Florida act of 1883 (chap. 3443), county boards of health have no authority to demand and collect from vessels coming into the jurisdiction of said boards fees for fumigation or disinfection, unless said vessels are subject to and have been put in quarantine Forbes v. Board of Health, 13 L.R.A. 549, 28 Fla. 26, 9 So. 862. § 12. Quarantine. Liability of members of health board in respect to, see post, § 20. Mode of raising question of authority to quarantine, see APPEAL AND ERROR, § 378 d. Removal of passenger from train by quarantine or health officer, see CARRIERS, Due process of law as to generally, see CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, § 469 a. County's liability for loss from quarantining person, see COUNTIES, §§ 17 a, b, 46 m. Motive of, see COURTS, § 62 e. Presumption of knowledge of, see EVIDENCE, Knowledge of mother as to violation of § 179 j. quarantine by children, see EVIDENCE, § 183 a. Hospital for contagious diseases, generally, see HOSPITAL, § 1. Municipal liability for acts of agent in establishing quarantine, see MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS, § 300. Liability of railroad company voluntarily taking on itself public duties as to, see NEGLIGENCE, § 13 g. Issues raised by general denial in action against officer for wrongful quarantine, see PLEADING, § 465 e. Title of statute as to, see STATUTES, § 80 a. Treaties made with reference to, see TREATIES, § 1 c. See also WORDS AND PHRASES, 3564. a. It is not essential to the enforcement of a quarantine that the fact of the existence of the disease in the subject of the quarantine should be primarily established. State v. Rasmussen, 52 L.R.A. 78, 7 Idaho, 1, 59 Pac. 933, aff'd in 181 U. S. 198, 45 L. ed. 820, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 594. b. Quarantine regulations which make unreasonable discriminations are invalid. Pierce v. Dillingham, 62 L.R.A. 888, 203 Ill. 148, 67 N. E. 846. c. To quarantine persons means to keep them, when suspected of having contracted or been exposed to an infectious disease. out of a community, or to confine them to a given place therein, and to prevent intercourse between them and the people generally of such community. Persons who are merely vaccinated, and then allowed to go when and where they please and to mingle freely with the other members of the community, are in no sense of the word quarantined; so that, while both are preventive measures vaccination is one thing and quarantine is another. Daniel v. Putnam County, 54 L.R.A. 292, 113 Ga. 570, 38 S. E. 980. d. The mere fear or apprehension of possible danger, unsupported by reasons, will not justify quarantine regulations. Pierce v. Dillingham, 62 L.R.A. 888, 203 Ill. 148, 67 N. E. 846. e. Requiring a person exposed to a contagious disease to remain in quarantine dur§ing the duration of the danger from the disease, to be determined by a health offito cer, is reasonable. State v. Racskowski, 45 L.R.A. (N.S.) 580, 86 Conn. 677, 86 Atl. 606. 133 b. Carrier's duty to inform passenger as quarantine, see CARRIERS, § 163. Quarantine laws as regulation of commerce, see COMMERCE, VII. Delegation of power as to, see CONSTITU TIONAL LAW, § 94 e. Due process of law in quarantining vessels, see CONSTITUTIONAL LAWs, § 453. f. Power to quarantine persons exposed to contagious diseases is included in a statute conferring all power necessary and proper for preserving the public health and preventing the spread of disease. State v. III. Regulations to protect health. a. In general. Racskowski, 45 L.R.A. (N.S.) 580, 86 Conn. | health. People ex rel. Jenkins v. Board of 677, 86 Atl. 606. Education, 17 L.R.A. (N.S.) 709, 234 Ill. 422, 84 N. E. 1046. g. Authority to quarantine persons who refuse to be vaccinated, but who are not infected with and are not shown to have been exposed to smallpox, is not given by N. Y. Laws 1893, chap. 661, § 14, authorizing the isolation of all persons and things infected with or exposed to a contagious disease, and provision for "thorough and safe vaccination for all persons in need of the same." Re Smith, 28 L.R.A. 820, 146 N. Y. 68, 40 N. E. 497. 15. Power to compel. Delegation of power as to, see CONSTITU- a. Municipal corporations must have express power from the legislature to compel h. The mere fact that a person is carry-vaccination. Morris v. Columbus, 42 L.R.A. ing on a general express business in a dis- 175, 102 Ga. 792, 30 S. E. 850. trict in which many cases of smallpox have b. The right to enforce vaccination is deexisted does not show that he has been ex-rived from necessity. Morris v. Columbus, posed to that disease, so as to justify his detention in quarantine until he consents to be vaccinated. Re Smith, 28 L.R.A. 820, 146 N. Y. 68, 40 N. E. 497. a. A mother who knowingly permits her children to violate a valid quarantine order may be subject to the statutory penalty for violating quarantine. State v. Racskowski, 45 L.R.A. (N.S.) 580, 86 Conn. 677, 86 Atl. 606. b. Disobedience of a quarantine order by going upon the street is not criminal in the case of one who has no knowledge of the order. State v. Butts, 19 L.R.A. 725, 3 S. D. 577, 54 N. W. 603. (Annotated) b. Vaccination. § 14. Generally. Assault by vaccination of passenger, see 42 L.R.A. 175, 102 Ga. 792, 30 S. E. 850. c. Authorizing county and municipal authorities to require compulsory vaccination is within the power of the legislature unless forbidden by the Constitution. State v. Hay, 49 L.R.A. 588, 126 N. C. 999, 35 S. E. 459. vaccination is not vitiated by failure to exd. An ordinance requiring compulsory cept from its operation persons whose health is such that it would be unsafe for them to submit to vaccination, State v. Hay, 49 L.R.A. 588, 126 N. C. 999, 35 S. E. 459. e. A statute permitting municipal authorities to make regulations "for the vaccination of its inhabitants under the direction of" the local board of health does not require the board of health to act in conjunction with the aldermen in passing the ordinance. State v. Hay, 49 L.R.A. 588, 126 N. C. 999, 35 S. E. 459. § 16. What justifies refusal to submit to. a. Failure to comply with an ordinance requiring compulsory vaccination is not justified by one's own opinion, or that of his personal physician, that it would be. dangerous for him to be vaccinated, or that Exemption of minors and persons under he is sufficiently protected by former vacguardianship from penalty imposed for cination. State v. Hay, 49 L.R.A. 588, 126 refusal to be vaccinated, see CONSTITU-N. C. 999, 35 S. E. 459. TIONAL LAW, § 430 c. Due process of law as to, see TIONAL LAW, § 454. Police power as to, see CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, § 730. Authority of county officers to purchase vaccine matter, see COUNTIES, § 46 k, l. Judicial notice as to, see EVIDENCE, § 62. Burden of proof as to, see EVIDENCE, § 549 e. b. The views of an individual do not enCONSTITU-title him to be exempted from the operation of an order of the board of health requiring the vaccination of all citizens of the municipality. Com. v. Pear, 67 L.R.A. 935, 183 Mass. 242, 66 N. E. 719, aff'd in 197 U. S. 11, 49 L. ed. 643, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 358. c. The theoretical possibility of an injury from vaccination in an individual case does Municipal liability for injury in perform-cination of all citizens is unreasonable. not show that a statute requiring the vacing, see MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS, $$ '299 c, 300 b. Of pupils attending public schools, see a. An ordinance requiring vaccination must rest upon the ground that it is a necessary means of preserving the public Com. v. Pear, 67 L.R.A. 935, 183 Mass. 242, 66 N. E. 719, aff'd in 197 U. S. 11, 49 L. ed. 643, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 358. fects of vaccination are injurious and dand. The testimony of experts that the efgerous does not, in view of facts of history, warrant a court in holding a statute requiring citizens to be vaccinated unconstitutional. Com. v. Pear, 67 L.R.A, 935, 183 Mass. 242, 66 N. E. 719, aff'd in 197 U. S. 11, 49 L. ed. 643, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 358. |