Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lee v. Molinsky

Supreme Court of Arizona

April 5, 1954

LEE et al.
v.
MOLINSKY et ux.

Page 976

[77 Ariz. 185] Darrow & D'Antonio, Tucson, for appellants.

Jack I. Podert, Tucson, for appellees.

STANFORD, Justice.

Plaintiffs, the Molinskys, brought their action in the superior court against defendants for $944.83 on an oral contract to recover for labor and material on a time and material basis.

While plaintiffs were presenting their case, defendants moved for a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter, because the complaint failed to allege that plaintiff, Joseph Molinsky, was a duly licensed contractor at the time the contract was made and at the time the cause of action arose. This motion was denied.

Judgment for $716.05, costs and interest was entered by the trial court, and from same and the denial of motion for new trial, this appeal was taken.

The sections of our Code, to which we now refer, were relied on by defendants in [77 Ariz. 186] their objections to the trial court's jurisdiction over the subject matter; to the testimony offered; and now in their 'assignments of error'.

Section 67-2320, Arizona Code, 1939, Cumulative Supplement 1952, reads:

'Maintenance of action.--No contractor shall act as agent or bring or maintain any action in any court of the state for the collection of compensation for the performance of any act for which a license is required by this act without alleging and proving that such contractor was a duly licensed contractor at the time the contract sued upon was entered into and at the time the alleged cause of action arose.'

The contract between the parties was made December 6, 1951. The section above quoted became effective in June, 1951, being a reenactment of Section 12, Ch. 102, Laws 1931, § 67-814, A.C.A.1939.

While the plaintiff was presenting his case, he moved to amend his complaint 'to allege that plaintiff was and is, at all times mentioned herein, a duly licensed contractor in the State of Arizona.' This

Page 977

cured the jurisdictional question raised by defendants.

After the granting of the motion to amend, plaintiff, over the objections of defendants, placed in evidence the following exhibits:

A directory of Arizona contractors, published November, 1951, by R. S. Spoon, Registrar of Contractors, in which the name of plaintiff Joseph Molinsky is shown in the alphabetical listing.

A receipt reading 'Registrar of Contractors, Phoenix, Arizona, July 24, 1952, for the sum of $26.00. License No. 7513 (renewal and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.