Miller v. Alabama State Board of Public Accountancy

98 So. 893, 210 Ala. 619, 1924 Ala. LEXIS 38
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedJanuary 24, 1924
Docket3 Div. 600.
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 98 So. 893 (Miller v. Alabama State Board of Public Accountancy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Miller v. Alabama State Board of Public Accountancy, 98 So. 893, 210 Ala. 619, 1924 Ala. LEXIS 38 (Ala. 1924).

Opinion

GARDNER, J.

This is an injunction proceeding wherein complainant seeks to prevent the board of public accountancy from hearing and passing upon certain charges preferred against the complainant, wherein it is sought to have complainant’s license or certificate as a certified public accountant canceled.

In Lehmann v. Board of Public Accountancy, 208 Ala. 185, 94 South. 94, the court held that a bill for injunction did not lie to prevent the hearing of charges of similar char *620 aeter, and affirmed the decree of the court below dissolving the temporary injunction and sustaining the demurrer to the bill upon this ground. In its essential phases the instant case is not to be distinguished from the Lehmann Case, and upon that authority the decree of the court below, will be affirmed. The Lehmann Case was carried to the Supreme Court of the United States, and there approved. Lehmann v. State Board of Public Accountancy et al., 44 Sup. Ct. 128, 68 L. Ed.

Counsel for appellant direct. attention to the fact that in the case now under consideration there ar£ certain charges of activity on the part of members of the board against the complainant so as to show a bias and prejudice, and render' them disqualified to serve — a question which it is insisted was not presented in' the Lehmann Case.

We are of the opinion, however, that the authorities sustain the view that the averments of the bill concerning these elements of disqualification are insufficient to give the bill equity as one seeking injunctive' relief. 15 R. C. L. 541, and authorities cited in note.

It results that the decree appealed from will be here affirmed.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. L, and SAYRE and MILLER, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Hilkert v. Canning
119 P.2d 233 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1941)
Rixford Manufacturing Co. v. Town of Highgate
144 A. 680 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1929)
State Ex Rel. Miller v. Aldridge
103 So. 835 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1925)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
98 So. 893, 210 Ala. 619, 1924 Ala. LEXIS 38, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-alabama-state-board-of-public-accountancy-ala-1924.