Legal Opinion

Muth v. Leineke

California Court of Appeal

Decided July 7, 1970No. Civ. 12266Published

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

BRAY, J. *

Judgment roll appeal by plaintiff from judgment in favor of defendants.

Questions Presented

1. The undisclosed agent’s lack of license, said license required by Business and Professions Code, section 7031, bars recovery by plaintiff, an admitted undisclosed principal.

2. Plaintiff may not recover for materials.

Record

In October 1966, Eugene Niccum, doing business as Tru-Line Masonry, without a contractor’s license, orally agreed to do certain masonry work for defendants. Unknown to defendants, at the time of the making, performance and completion of the contract, Niccum was the…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Lewis & Queen v. N. M. Ball SonsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
  2. Latipac, Inc. v. Superior Court of Marin CountyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1966
  3. Johnson v. MattoxCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968
  4. Weller v. ChavarriaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1965
  5. Jackson v. PancakeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API