Martin v. Mitchell Cement Contracting Co.
Before: Kingsley
Opinion
KINGSLEY, J.
On June 12, 1974, plaintiff entered into a subcontract with defendant Mitchell Cement Contracting Co. (Mitchell) to perform certain masonry work on a building being constructed at 946 North Mariposa Avenue in the City of Los Angeles.
1
He performed the work involved, was paid only part of the price, and sued for the balance. He recovered judgment against Mitchell and its bondsman. The defendants have appealed; we affirm.
[17]
The material facts are not in dispute.
2
Plaintiff holds, and at all times herein involved held, a valid license as a general contractor. He does not hold, and never has held, a specialty license as a masonry contractor. The subcontract herein involved called for masonry work only and only masomy work was performed.
The sole question before us on this appeal is whether plaintiff may recover for his work even though he did not hold a specialty license as a masonary contractor. We hold that he can.
The applicable statutory provisions (contained in the Business and Professions Code) are as follows:
“§ 7031. No person engaged in the business or acting in the capacity of a contractor, may bring or maintain any action in any court of this state for the collection of compensation for the performance of any. act or contract for which a license is required by this chapter without alleging and proving that he was a duly licensed contractor at all times during the performance of such act or contract, except that such prohibition shall not apply to contractors, who are each individually licensed under this chapter but who fail to comply with Section 7029.”
“§ 7057. A general building contractor is a contractor whose principal contracting business is in connection with any structure built, being built, or to be built, for the support, shelter and enclosure of persons, animals, chattels or movable property of any kind, requiring in its construction the use of more than two unrelated building trades or crafts, or to do or superintend the whole or any part thereof.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)