Plaintiff subcontractor challenged the order of the Superior Court of Trinity County (California), which held that the subcontractor could not maintain its action against defendants, general contractor and bondholder, for recovery of the balance due on the oral contract for labor and material furnished as mentioned in california civil jury instructions.
The general contractor and the bondholder argued that the subcontractor was not entitled to recovery for the materials furnished because he did not possess a valid contractor's license. The subcontractor argued that he was entitled to recover the costs of the labor and materials furnished while he possessed the valid license. The lower court found that the provisions of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 7031 precluded the subcontractor from maintaining an action against the general contractor and the bondholder. The court agreed and affirmed the judgment. It found that the subcontractor's failure to obtain a license made the transaction illegal. The subcontractor was unable to prove that he was a duly licensed contractor at all times during the performance of such act or contract as required by § 7031. Therefore, the subcontractor was precluded from maintaining his action against the general contractor and the bondholder.
The judgment in favor of the general contractor and the bondholder was affirmed.
Appellant Contractors' State License Board challenged a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside County (California), which commanded the Board to vacate and set aside its decision revoking the contractor's licenses of respondents, contractor and employee.
The contractor held a license and furnished the qualifying experience for the employee. After the contractor was adjudged bankrupt, an accusation was filed charging him with a violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 7113.5. His bankruptcy schedules established that a substantial portion of the liabilities from which the contractor sought to be discharged represented amounts owed for labor, supplies, and materials furnished for his use as a licensed contractor. The Board revoked the contractor's license and, without benefit of the contractor's qualifying experience, the employee's license was also revoked. The lower court vacated the order revoking the licenses and the court reversed. It rejected respondents' contentions that § 7113.5 was unconstitutional because it discriminated against contractors who resorted to bankruptcy. Instead, the court held that the statute was a valid exercise of the police power where the bankruptcy related to the licensee's business as a contractor. Further, the legislature had laid down definite standards for administrative implementation of the statute.
The court reversed the lower court's judgment, which ordered the Board to vacate its order revoking respondents' licenses, and instructed that a judgment be entered denying the writ.
