499 P.2d 635 (Colo.App. Div. 2 1972)
The LITTLETON NATIONAL BANK, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
The BANKING BOARD of the State of Colorado et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 71--385.
Court of Appeals of Colorado, Second Division
May 2, 1972
Rehearing Denied May 23, 1972.
Daniel, McCain & Brown, Orrel A. Daniel, Brighton, Simon, Eason, Hoyt & Malone, P.C., Richard L. Eason, Englewood, for plaintiff-appellant.
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen. John P. Moore, Deputy Atty. Gen., Del J. Ellis, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for defendants-appellees, Banking Board of State of Colorado and Harry Bloom, State Bank Commissioner.
Rothgerber, Appel & Powers, Ira Rothgerber, Jr., Denver, for defendants-appellees, Richard C. Armstrong, James R. Lincoln, Allan P. Crawfurd, William P. Johnson and Stanley J. Edwards.
ENOCH, Judge.
This appeal is from a district court judgment affirming an order of the Banking Board of the State of Colorado (Banking Board), which order approved the application of The Bank of Littleton (bank) for a new bank charter. Plaintiff, The Littleton National Bank, alleges that the application for the charter was defective because it did not contain all of the information required by 1967 Perm.Supp., C.R.S.1963, 14--9--(1)(c), and that certain findings of the Banking Board were not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
I.
1967 Perm.Supp., C.R.S.1963, 14--9--9(1)(c) provides:
'An application for a charter in such form, and containing such information, as the banking board requires, including but not limited to the following . . . the name, residence, citizenship, and occupation of each subscriber, and the number of shares for which he has subscribed . . ..'
Plaintiff claims that the bank and its organizers did not comply with this section because the principal organizer, Richard Armstrong, refused to disclose 'who would own or control 14,205 out of 15,000 shares of stock for the proposed bank.' We do not find this allegation supported by either the biographical report submitted by Armstrong to the Banking Board or by the testimony given by Armstrong at the hearing.
The application contains a stock subscription agreement in which Armstrong committed himself to purchase 14,205 of the 15,000 authorized shares of the capital stock of the proposed bank. Under 'Borrowed Purchase Price', Armstrong states that, 'no money will be borrowed, however, some stock will be carried by the G. J. Armstrong Trust and by my mother, Cathryn Armstrong.' This latter statement does not detract from Armstrong's personal obligation to purchase the 14,205 shares, but merely indicates that Armstrong had not determined exactly how the stock would eventually be held. Armstrong's testimony at the hearing is not contrary to this conclusion. Since Richard Armstrong was personally obligated to buy the 14,205 shares, there was compliance with the statute, and the Banking Board has no obligation to inquire further. Academy Boulevard Bank v. Banking Board, Colo.App., 492 P.2d 76.
II.
Plaintiff also alleges that the Banking Board's findings that the proposed bank would serve a public need and advantage, and that a profitable operation of the proposed bank had been reasonably projected were not supported by the evidence. Although the evidence on both issues is conflicting, there is substantial evidence in the record supporting the Banking Board's findings. Accordingly, we affirm those findings. Goldy v. Henry, 166 Colo. 401, 443 P.2d 994; Academy Boulevard Bank v. Banking Board, Supra.
Judgment affirmed.
COYTE and PIERCE, JJ., concur.