Title: Alabama State Bd. of Optometry v. Busch Jewelry Co.
Citation: 75 So. 2d 121
Docket Number: N/A
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: October 7, 1954

75 So. 2d 121 (1954)
ALABAMA STATE BOARD OF OPTOMETRY et al.
v.
BUSCH JEWELRY COMPANY et al.
6 Div. 458.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
October 7, 1954.
*122 W. G. Hardwick, Dothan, Richard A. Billups, Jr., Jackson, Miss., Albert Boutwell, Wm. H. Ellis, Birmingham, for appellants.
E. M. Friend, Jr., Meade Whitaker, Sirote, Permutt &amp; Friend, Cabaniss &amp; Johnston, Birmingham, for appellees.
GOODWYN, Justice.
Appeal from final decree permanently restraining appellants (members of the Alabama State Board of Optometry and the Alabama Optometric Association, Incorporated) from taking action against appellees (Busch Jewelry Company, Kay Jewelry Company, Louis Graze and C. H. Kuhlo) "for or on account of the action of the complainants [appellees Busch and Kay Jewelry Companies] in inserting or using the names of the duly licensed optometrists [appellees Graze and Kuhlo] in charge of the optometric departments in complainants' stores in any advertising of said departments". The decree contains the following findings:
Code 1940, Tit. 46, §§ 206, 210 and 211, provide as follows:
Article III of the Code of Ethics of the Alabama Optometric Association, as amended on January 23, 1951, is as follows:
Sections II, III, and IV were added to Article III by the 1951 amendment. Section I had been a part of the Code of Ethics for many years.
Our view is that the trial court was correct in its finding that amended Article III of the Code of Ethics is contrary to the grant of the right to advertise contained in Code 1940, Tit. 46, §§ 210, 211, supra, and that the decree, therefore, is due to be affirmed. We do not discuss, as being unnecessary to a decision, whether there is an unlawful delegation of legislative authority to the Alabama Optometric Association under § 206, supra; nor do we find it necessary to pass on the validity of amended Article III of the Code of Ethics, supra, except insofar as its provisions conflict with the provisions of Code 1940, Tit. 46, §§ 210, 211, supra.
The clear and unmistakable legislative policy embraced in §§ 210 and 211, supra, is to permit, first, the operation of an optometric department as part of a general merchandising business, provided such department is "in charge of a duly licensed optometrist", and second, the advertising of such department, provided the name of the licensed optometrist is used in the advertising. To say, then, that a licensed optometrist may not advertise is to say, in effect, that the store owner may not advertise, for the store owner is expressly prohibited from advertising without using the licensed optometrist's name. Thus, amended Article III of the Code of Ethics impinges on the store owner's right to advertise as given by the statute. This statutory right prevails. The applicable principle is very aptly stated in Abelson's, Inc., v. New Jersey State Board of Optometrists, 5 N.J. 412, 75 A.2d 867, 872, 22 A.L.R.2d 929, 938, as follows:
The Alabama optometry law was originally passed in 1919. Sections 210 and 211, supra, have remained on the statute books without material change since that time. If there is to be a change in the legislative policy therein expressed, that is a matter for legislative action.
The decree appealed from is due to be, and is, affirmed.
Affirmed.
LIVINGSTON, C. J., and SIMPSON and CLAYTON, JJ., concur.