Jameson

The defendants and appellants here, respondents in a certiorari proceeding in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, appealed from a judgment rendered therein annulling a judgment of said board which suspended the license of the petitioner to practice dentistry in this state.

Omitting formal parts of the accusation, it was charged that respondent used in his practice “a name other than the name under which he is licensed to practice dentistry . . . and whereby he did indicate and does now indicate that he is practicing dentistry under such name ...” A citation was issued and served pursuant to the statutory requirement that “said verified accusation has been presented to this board for its consideration, which this board deems sufficient”, and after plea of not guilty and the introduction of evidence, said board rendered its findings and judgment suspending the license in question.

The appellants’ first contention is that the act of the dental board in passing upon the sufficiency of the accusation was purely ministerial and that its decision was conclusive and not subject to review in a certiorari proceeding. It has been decided that while such bodies do not exercise “the…

I nconcur. The jurisdiction here attacked is not that of subject matter, for the dental board clearly has legal authority to suspend or revoke a license to practice dentistry, but the attack is made that there was no jurisdiction of the person of respondent by reason of the failure of the board to make certain orders after the filing of the accusation. While respondent refers to the point as one of first impression in the appellate courts it is not new in principle. In this case respondent demurred to the accusation and, after the demurrer was overruled, interposed an answer denying all of the allegations of ‘the accusation and then went to a hearing on the merits. While it is true that jurisdiction of the person in civil cases is not acquired where the party is forcibly brought into court against his will (In re Edwards, 99 Cal. App. 541 [ 278 Pac. 910 , 290 Pac. 591 ], distinguishing the rule in civil and criminal cases), it is also true that he who answers a complaint in a civil action thereby puts in a general appearance (sec. 1014, Code Civ. Proc.) and that the voluntary appearance of a defendant is equivalent to personal service of the summons and complaint upon him. (Code…