
    DENTISTS — STATUTES.
    [Franklin (2d) Circuit Court,
    June, 1904.]
    Sullivan, Dustin and Wilson, JJ.
    State ex rel. Glenn v. Board of Dental Examiners, etc.
    1. Dentist hot Legally Practicing, Governed by New Laws, etc.
    A dentist wlio was not legally practicing his profession in this state at the tim'e the act of May 10, 1902 (Sec. 4404 Rev. Stat.) became effective, to wit, June 1, 1902, is governed by the provisions of said act. The fact that he might have made application to the state board of dental examiners for, and received a certificate to practice under former laws before their repeal, was not a vested right; ■ nor was the mere right to make such application under said laws such a “cause of proceeding” as is affected by Sec. 79 Rev. Stat., which provides that the repeal of a Jaw shall not affect existing causes of proceeding unless expressly so provided.
    2. New Dentist Law not Unreasonable in its Terms.
    The act of May 10, 1902 (Sec. 4404 Rev. Stat.), governing the practice of dentistry in Ohio, does not deprive, absolutely, a dentist from practicing his profession, nor does it place unreasonable restrictions upon such right.
    ■8. Legislature may Regulate Practice of Dentistry, When.
    Where no vested right to practice dentistry exists, it is competent for the legislature to change the terms, and raise the standard of proficiency as to those who desire to engage in the practice of the profession.
    Error to Franklin common pleas court-
    
      G. J. Marriott, for plaintiff.
    S. W.Bennett, for defendant.
    For defendant’s brief of tbe circuit court, see State v. Board of Dental Examiners, 14 Dec. 245.
   WILSON, J.

We are of tbe opinion that tbe judgment in tbis case should be affirmed.

Section 4404 Rev. Stat. (95 O. L. 313), provides:

“Any and all persons wbo shall desire to practice dentistry in tbis state after June 1, 1902, except such persons as are legally practicing dentistry, as defined in this act in the state at tbe time of the passage of tbis act, shall file application, ’ ’ etc.

Tbe relator was not legally practicing dentistry in this state at tbe time of tbe passage of tbe act. He bad not obtained tbe required certificate under any of tbe prior acts of the legislature. The act of May 10, 1902 (95 O. L. 313), is therefore by its express terms made applicable to him, not coming within the excepted class.

Tbe question then is, does it deprive him of a vested right 1

What be demands at tbe hands of the board is the right to practice his profession in Ohio. He had no vested right to do so at the time of the passage of the act. It does not, absolutely, deprive him of that right, or place unreasonable restrictions upon its acquirement. That he might have applied under the former act and obtained the necessary certificate according to its provisions under the facts pleaded in the petition was not. a vested right. It simply provided the way in which the right might become vested. It was competent therefore for the legislature to change the terms by raising the standard as to him, the same as to any one else who was not then legally practicing dentistry in the state.

The right to make the application under the prior law was not such cause of proceeding as is affected by the provisions of Sec. 79, Rev. Stat.

,The judgment is affirmed.

Sullivan and Dustin, JJ., concur.  