People v. Schomig

California Court of Appeal Aug 1, 1925 No. Docket No. 1238.Published

Before: Knight

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the real estate broker licensing act is constitutional because it creates reasonable classifications for penalties based on the legal nature of corporations versus individuals, and that the omission of copartnerships from the penalty section does not invalidate the law because individual partners remain criminally liable.

Issues

Whether the real estate broker licensing act is unconstitutional due to discriminatory penalty provisions for individuals, corporations, and copartnerships.
Whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence of the defendant's post-sale activities to prove he acted as a real estate broker.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It is manifest that a corporation cannot be imprisoned; it can only be fined; but its officers and agents through whose efforts the commission of the criminal act has been accomplished may be held criminally responsible”

“It was therefore permissible, we think, for the prosecution to show, as one of the circumstances connecting appellant with the transaction of sale, a continuation of his activities in relation thereto.”

KNIGHT, J.

The defendant A. Schomig was convicted by a jury of violating an act of the legislature relating to real estate brokers and salesmen (Stats. 1919, p. 1252), to wit, engaging in the business of a real estate broker and salesman without first procuring a license therefor, as required by said act. He was sentenced to pay a fine of $200 or suffer a jail sentence, and he has appealed from the judgment.

The constitutionality - of the act is attacked upon the ground that its provisions are discriminatory (subds. 2 and 33, sec. 25, art. IV, and sec. 21, art. I, Cal. Const., amendment XIV, U. S. Const.), it being contended that while said act purports to deal 'with individuals, copartnerships and corporations as a class, it prescribes a different penalty for an individual than it does for a corporation and exempts a copartnership from punishment altogether.

Section 1 of said act provides: “It shall be unlawful for any person, copartnership or corporation to engage in the business, or act in the capacity of a real estate broker, or a real estate salesman within this state without first obtaining a license therefor.”

-Section 2 of said act, so far as it is material here, reads: “A real estate broker within the meaning of the act is a person, copartnership, or corporation who, for a compensa

[112]

tion, sells, . . . real estate . . . for others as a whole or partial vocation.”

Section 17 of the act provides: “Any person or corporation acting as real estate broker or real estate salesman within the meaning of this act without a license as herein provided shall, upon conviction thereof, if a person, be punished by a fine of not to exceed two thousand dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail or state prison for a term not to exceed two years, or by both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court; or if a corporation, be punished by a fine of not to exceed five thousand dollars. ’ ’

, The constitution does not deprive the legislature of power to pass all special acts; but forbids special laws in all cases where a general and uniform law can be made applicable (A

rgyle Dredging Co.

People v. Schomig

AI Brief

KNIGHT, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief