Title: People v. Freedman

State: colorado

Issuer: Colorado Supreme Court

Document:

356 P.2d 899 (1960) PEOPLE of the State of Colorado on the Relation of Duke W. DUNBAR, as Attorney General of the State of Colorado, and of Robert J. Miles, Otto P. Butterly, Charles A. Taylor, Constituting the State Board of Accountancy of Colorado, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Al FREEDMAN, doing business as Al Freedman & Company, Defendant in Error. No. 18731. Supreme Court of Colorado, In Department November 14, 1960. Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., Charles S. Thomas, Asst. Atty. Gen., Winston S. Howard, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiffs in error. Fred M. Winner, Denver, for defendant in error. MOORE, Justice. This action was instituted in the trial court by the State Board of Accounting, hereinafter referred to as the Board. The complaint contains an allegation that the defendant Al Freedman conducts an accounting and income tax service at two separate locations in Denver; that he has not received from the Board "a certificate of qualifications to practice as a certified public accountant in the State of Colorado, nor has the defendant received from said *900 Board, a certificate of authority to practice as a registered accountant in the State of Colorado." It is further alleged in the complaint that Freedman, in advertising and "in holding his business out to the people," has used the words "public accountant" in a manner to indicate and lead the public to believe that he has been authorized by the Board to practice as a public accountant. An advertisement admittedly placed in a Denver newspaper by defendant is specifically set forth in the complaint and is as follows: The prayer of the complaint is that the court "issue its preliminary injunction enjoining and restraining the defendant from using or assuming to use the words `Public Accountant' to indicate that he is entitled to practice as a public accountant in the State of Colorado," and that following a hearing the temporary injunction be made permanent. Counsel for Freedman filed a motion to dismiss in which it is asserted that the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a claim for relief. The trial court sustained the motion and dismissed the action. On this ground the Board seeks review by writ of error. The pertinent statute is C.R.S. 1953, 2-1-12(1) and reads as follows: The findings of the trial court contain the following significant language: The judgment is affirmed. KNAUSS and DOYLE, JJ., concur.