# Miller v. Alabama State Board of Public Accountancy

> Supreme Court of Alabama · January 24, 1924 · 210 Ala. 619

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3234854

## Case

- **Full name:** MILLER v. ALABAMA STATE BOARD OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTANCY Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Alabama
- **Decided:** January 24, 1924
- **Citations:** 210 Ala. 619; 98 So. 893; 1924 Ala. LEXIS 38
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Gardner
- **Judges:** Gardner, Anderson, Sayre, Miller
- **Cited by:** 3 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3234854

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3234854. Public record. Not legal advice.