Attorney Gen. v. Kindy Optical Co.

• Decision Date: 05 December 1933
• Docket Number: No. 4.,4.
• Citation: Attorney Gen. v. Kindy Optical Co., 265 Mich. 265, 251 N.W. 343 (Mich. 1933)
• Parties: ATTORNEY GENERAL v. KINDY OPTICAL CO.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

265 Mich. 265

251 N.W. 343

ATTORNEY GENERAL

v.KINDY OPTICAL CO.

No. 4.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Dec. 5, 1933.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County; Allan Campbell, Judge.

Information in the nature of quo warranto by the Attorney General against the Kindy Optical Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before the Entire Bench.

Patrick H. O'Brien, Atty. Gen., and Walter A. Kirkby, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.

Ben H. Cole, of Detroit, for appellee.

Lucking, Van Auken & Sprague and Philip D. Dexter, all of Detroit, amici curiae.

POTTER, Justice.

Information in the nature of quo warranto by the Attorney General, to oust defendant from employment of licensed optometrists who serve customers while employed by it. From a judgment for defendant plaintiff appeals. The state claims the purposes set forth in defendant's articles of association do not include such service, and the law prohibits defendant corporation from operating an optometric department. Included in the purposes of the corporation is to ‘carry on the business of optician and dealer in optical goods and allied lines.’ Defendant employs optometrists in connection with its sale of optical goods. The employment of an optometrist in connection with the sale of optical goods by defendant is a natural and proper extension of its authorized service and is not ultra vires.

The statute, section 6787, Comp. Laws 1929, contemplates maintenance of an optometrical department by corporations in connection with the sale of optical goods, but specific types of advertising are prohibited. Many decisions construing different sta...