Attorney Gen. v. Kindy Optical Co.
| Decision Date | 05 December 1933 |
| Docket Number | No. 4.,4. |
| Citation | 251 N.W. 343,265 Mich. 265 |
| Parties | ATTORNEY GENERAL v. KINDY OPTICAL CO. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
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.
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 statutes are cited. They are not applicable to the construction of the statutes of this state.
Judgment affirmed, but without costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mack v. Saars
...at all retail sales of eyeglasses were held to render lawful the corporate employment of optometrists. In Attorney General v. Kindy Optical Co., 265 Mich. 265, 266, 251 N.W. 343, a statute which spoke in terms of any 'corporation * * * who maintains or operates * * * an optometric departmen......
-
State ex inf. McKittrick v. Gate City Optical Co.
...24, 33 S.W.2d 891; State ex inf. Sager v. Lewin, 128 Mo.App. 149, 106 S.W. 581; Jaeckle v. L. Bamberger & Co., 181 A. 182; Voorhies v. Kindy Optical Co., 251 N.W. 343; Renwick v. Phillips, 268 P. 368; Optical Institute v. Thompson, 237 P. 969; Scadrons' Sons, Inc., v. Suskind, 229 N.Y.S. 20......
-
N.H. Bd. of Registration in Optometry v. Scott Jewelry Co.
...Inc., 183 Ga. 669, 189 S.E. 238; Dvorine v. Castelberg Jewelry Corporation, 170 Md. 661, 185 A. 562; Attorney General v. Kindy Optical Company, 265 Mich. 265, 251 N.W. 343; State ex inf. McKittrick v. Gate City Optical Company, 339 Mo. 427, 97 S.W.2d 89; Jaeckle v. L. Bamberger & Co., 119 N......
-
State ex Inf. McKittrick v. Gate City Optical, 34009.
...Powers v. K.C. Pub. Serv. Co., 328 Mo. 770. The hiring of an expert is not the practice of his profession. Voorhies v. Kindy Optical Co., 251 N.W. 343; State ex rel. v. Lewin, 128 Mo. App. 149; State Electro-Medical Institute v. State, 103 N.W. 1078. And the regulation of any calling cannot......