Goldsmith v. Clabaugh

• Decision Date: 04 May 1925
• Docket Number: No. 4256.,4256.
• Citation: 6 F.2d 94,55 App. DC 346
• Parties: GOLDSMITH v. CLABAUGH et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

55 App. DC 346, 6 F.2d 94 (1925)

GOLDSMITH v. CLABAUGH et al.^*

No. 4256.

Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.

Submitted April 7, 1925.

Decided May 4, 1925.

Motion for Modification of Judgment Denied May 9, 1925.

Mark Stearman and Henry Stearman, both of Washington, D. C., for appellant.

Peyton Gordon and V. E. West, both of Washington, D. C., for appellees.

Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices.

ROBB, Associate Justice.

Appeal from a judgment for the defendants in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia on petition for mandamus and answer thereto, to which answer a demurrer was interposed.

By the Act of February 17, 1923 (42 Stat. 1261), there was created "a board of accountancy for the District of Columbia." Section 1 of that act prohibits any person, who has not received from the board "a certificate of his qualifications to practice as a public accountant," from assuming the title of "certified accountant" or any abbreviation thereof. Section 2 defines a public accountant "as a person skilled in the knowledge and science of accounting, who holds himself out to the public as a practicing accountant for compensation," etc. By section 3 there is created a board of accountancy, consisting of three members, appointed by the commissioners of the District of Columbia. This section further provides that "the board shall organize by the election of a president and a secretary and a treasurer, and may make all rules and regulations necessary to carry into effect the purposes of this act."

Section 4 prohibits the granting of a certificate to any person other than a citizen of the United States or who has not declared his intention of becoming such, or who is not of good moral character. The applicant must be a graduate of a high school or possess equivalent education, or be one who, "in the opinion of the board, has had sufficient commercial experience in accounting," etc. Section 5 requires "that all examinations provided for herein shall be conducted by the board." Section 6 authorizes the board, "in its discretion," to waive an examination and issue a certificate as certified public accountant "to any person possessing the qualifications mentioned in section 4 of this act who is the holder of a certificate as certified public accountant issued under the laws of any state or territory which extends similar privilege to certified public accountants of the District of Columbia, provided the requirements for such certificate in the state or territory which has granted it to the applicant are, in the opinion of the board, equivalent to those herein required. * * *"

Section 7 authorizes the revocation of a certificate "for unprofessional conduct or other sufficient cause: Provided, that notice of the cause for such contemplated action and the date of the hearing thereon by the board shall have been mailed to the holder of such certificate at his or her registered address at least twenty days before such hearing. No certificate issued under this act shall be revoked until the board shall have held such hearing, but the nonappearance of the holder of any certificate, after notice as herein provided, shall not prevent such hearing. * * *" Section 8 relates to fees to be charged by the board, and by section 9 a penalty is provided for practicing without a certificate or after revocation thereof.

In his petition the plaintiff based his right to a certificate upon the fact that he held a certificate as certified public accountant pursuant to section 80 of the General Business Law of the state of New York (Consol. Laws N. Y. c. 20), and alleged that this law "provides for similar privileges to Certified Public Accountants of the District of Columbia." Plaintiff further alleged therein that he had made application to the board in the District of Columbia for permission to examine his "application and other papers on file with reference to petitioner's application," and that this request had been refused. He also alleged that he had made similar application respecting all the applications on file with the board, which request likewise had been refused.

In their answer the defendants raised no question as to the citizenship, moral character, or education of the plaintiff, but did challenge the averment that the New York law relied upon extends similar privileges to certified public accountants of the District of Columbia. Answering the averment that plaintiff had been denied the privilege of inspecting his own application and other papers on file with reference to it, the defendants alleged that they had offered to furnish him a copy of his application, but admitted that they had refused to exhibit either the original application or the other papers on file pertaining to it; the answer alleging that these had become "a part of the confidential files" of the board, and further "that, for the proper and efficient discharge of their duties as constituting the board of accountancy for the District of Columbia, it is necessary that they should so conduct the work of said board as to be in position to obtain as full information as possible in regard to the various applicants who may file applications with them, so as to act advisedly in granting or refusing such applications, and that, if they may be required by any applicant to disclose any matters in the files relating to his application, or to exhibit to him any of the papers or...