HEALTH. Freedom from pain or sick ness ; the most perfect state of animal life. It may be defined as the natural agreement and concordant disposition of the parts of the living body.
By the act of March 3, 1879, R. S. Suppl. 480, en forced by subsequent acts, a National Board of Health was established, to consist of seven members appointed by the president, and of four members detailed from the departments, whose duties shall be to obtain information upon all matters affecting the public health, to advise the heads of depart ments and state executives, to make necessary in vestigations at any places in the United States, or at foreign ports, and to make rules guarding against the introduction of contagious diseases into the country, and their spread from state to state. See Dunwoody v. U. S., 143 U. S. 578, 12 Sup. Ct. 465, 36 L. Ed. 269.
By act of May 29, 1884, the bureau of ani mal industry was established, having for its object the protection of cattle from conta gious diseases, etc. By act of Feb. 2, 1903, the suppression of contagious diseases of cattle and other live stock was transferred from the treasury department to the depart ment of agriculture (bureau of animal indus try).
A state board of health is a tribunal con stituted by law, having the authority con ferred on it by law and no other authority. The legislature may provide for the punish ment of acts in resistance to or in violation of the authority conferred upon such sub ordinate tribunal or board. When such boards duly adopt rules or by-laws by virtue of legislative authority such rules and by laws, within the respective jurisdiction have the force and effect of a law of the legisla ture, and like an ordinance or by-law of a municipal corporation they may be said to be in force by the authority of the state; Blue v. Beach, 155 Ind. 121, 56 N. E. 89, 50 L. R. A. 64, 80 Am. St. Rep. 195 ; Com. v. Sisson, 189 Mass. 247, 75 N. E. 619, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 752, 109 Am. St. Rep. 630 ; Com. v. Pear, 183 Mass. 242, 66 N. E. 719, 67 L. R. A. 935 ; Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11, 25 Sup. Ct. 358, 49 L. Ed. 643, 3 Ann. Cas. 765. To invest such a body with authority over public health is not an un usual nor unreasonable or arbitrary require ment ; Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11, 25 Sup. Ct. 358, 49 L. Ed. 643, 3 Ann. Cas. 765 (compulsory vaccination).
A statute prescribing punishment for viola tion of a regulation of a state board of health is not unconstitutional on the theory that legislative power to create crimes is thereby delegated to such board ; Pierce v.
Doolittle, 130 Ia. 333, 106 N. W. 751, 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 143. See a note in 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 143.
County boards of health are held to be I corporate bodies invested by statute with functions of a public nature to be exercised for the public benefit. They are not liable in an action for tort for damages in the per formance of an official duty; Forbes v. Board of Health, 28 Fla. 26, 9 South. 862, 13 L. R. A. 549. They are not liable for mere errors of judgment; Raymond v. Fish, 51 Conn. 80, 50 Am. Rep. 3; Seavey v. Preble, 64 Me. 120; Whidden v. Cheever, 69 N. H. 142, 44 Atl. 908, 76 Am. St. Rep. 154 ; Campagnie Fran caise De Navigation v. Board of Health, 51 La. Ann. 645, 25 South. 591, 56 L. R. A. 795, 72 Am. St. Rep. 458 ; Rohn v. Osmun, 143 Mich. 68, 106 N. W. 697, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 635. But for the acts done in excess of their authority they can be held liable; Peo ple v. Board of Health, 140 N. Y. 1, 35 N. E. 320,. 23 L. R. A. 181, 37 Am. St. Rep. 522; Lowe v. Conroy, 120 Wis. 151, 97 N. W. 942, 66 L. R. 'A. 907, 102 Am. St. Rep. 983, 1 Ann. Cas. 341; Pearson v. Zehr, 138 Ill. 48, 29 N. E. 854, 32 Am. St. Rep. 113; Hersey v. Chap in, 162 Mass. 176, 38 N. E. 442.
Public policy requires that health officers be undisturbed in the exercise of their pow ers, unless clearly transcending their ity ; Hart v. Mayor, etc., 3 Paige (N. Y.) 218; 1 Dill. § 369; but in so acting such officers must not interfere with the natural right of individuals; State v. Speyer, 67 Vt. 502 ; the people "shall be secure in their persons and homes from unreasonable searches and sei zures"; Eddy v. Board of Health, 10 Phila. (Pa.) 94; Butterfoss v. State, 40 N. J. Eq. 325. See In re Smith, 146 N. Y. 68, 40 N. E. 497, 28 L. R. A. 820, 48 Am. St. Rep. 769, which case, overruling id., 84 Hun 465, 32 N. Y. Supp. 317, held that health officers may not quarantine persons refusing to be vacci nated when small-pox is imminent. A court of chancery can only interfere with the trus tees of a sanitary district where such trus tees have acted in violation of the law or in a fraudulent manner ; Johnson v. Sanitary Dist., 58 Ill. App. 306.