Title: Fischer v. Rakagis
Citation: 286 P.2d 312, 59 N.M. 463
Docket Number: 5913
State: new-mexico
Issuer: new-mexico Supreme Court
Date: June 29, 1955

286 P.2d 312 (1955) 59 N.M. 463 Karl FISCHER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gust RAKAGIS, Jack Zaris, and Eliza W. Woolford, Defendants-Appellees. No. 5913. Supreme Court of New Mexico. June 29, 1955. *313 Frazier, Cusack &amp; Snead, Roswell, for appellant. James T. Jennings, Roswell, for appellees. COMPTON, Chief Justice. The question is whether Chapter 197, Laws 1939, as amended, § 67-16-1 et seq., 1953 Comp., denying the contractor redress in the courts of the state, for the collection of compensation due under the contract, unless he alleges and proves that he was duly licensed under the provision of the act at the time the cause of action arose, operates to defeat a claim for compensation under a contract which reads: Exhibit "B" mentioned in the contract, reads: Upon motion the trial court dismissed the complaint, in which the following was charged as grounds for recovery: The pertinent provisions of the act are: Since the complaint did not allege that appellant was a licensed contractor, we are of the opinion that the contract falls within the inhibitions of the act and recovery is barred. It is clear that it was the intention of the parties that the fixtures were to be fabricated into the building under the performance contract and for a lump sum. See Porter Lumber Co. v. Wade, 38 N.M. 333, 32 P.2d 819; Fairbanks v. Williams, 25 N.M. 74, 177 P. 745; Patterson v. Chaney, 24 N.M. 156, 173 P. 859, 6 A.L.R. 90. It has been held that where the contracts of artisans, professional or business men are rendered void by statute, or where the statute expressly prohibits recovery for non-compliance therewith, no cause of action arises from such contracts. Desmet v. Sublett, 54 N.M. 355, 225 P.2d 141; Kaiser v. Thomson, 55 N.M. 270, 232 P.2d 142; Crawford v. Holcomb, 57 N.M. 691, 262 P.2d 782. Appellant asserts that contracts relating to the making and installation of fixtures, such as a bar, being personalty, are not within the purview of the act. What has been said disposes of this claim, the chattels were fabricated into the building. Also, in his brief he makes the argument that the action was for wages; hence, not covered by the act. This contention is contrary to the allegations of the complaint and must be rejected. Admittedly, appellant agreed to do the work as an independent contractor and the mere fact the contract was on a cost plus basis does not vest it with validity. *316 Appellant seeks to strike down the act as unconstitutional in several respects. It is strongly argued that the act contravenes the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, Section 18, Article 2, and Section 13, Article 6 of the New Mexico Constitution. We fail to so appraise the act. It does not contravene the due process clause or deny equal protection of law as guaranteed by the Federal Constitution or the Constitution of New Mexico, nor does it contravene Section 13, Article 6, New Mexico Constitution, vesting original jurisdiction of all matters and causes in the District Courts. That the legislature may create boards, such as boards for the licensing of contractors, and vest them with administrative powers, needs no citation of authorities. In Kaiser v. Thomson, supra, we said [55 N.M. 270, 232 P.2d 145]: While not in point, but cases enlightening in this connection are: Breithaupt v. Abram, 58 N.M. 385, 271 P.2d 827; State v. Spears, 57 N.M. 400, 259 P.2d 356, 39 A.L.R.2d 595; Fowler v. Corlett, 56 N.M. 430, 244 P.2d 1122; Stone v. City of Hobbs, 54 N.M. 237, 220 P.2d 704; Middle Rio Grande Water Users Ass'n v. Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District, 57 N.M. 287, 258 P.2d 391. It is asserted that the act violates Section 18, Article 4 of the Constitution as an attempt to amend the Mechanic's Lien Law by reference. The argument appears to us as unsound. The section merely enacts penalties, one of which is a denial of a remedy, for failure to comply with the act. Middle Rio Grande Water Users Ass'n v. Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District, supra. However, as previously stated, the claim is otherwise barred. Desmet v. Sublett, supra; Kaiser v. Thomson, supra. Lastly, it is argued that the act contravenes Section 16, Article 4, New Mexico Constitution, which provides that the subject of every act shall be clearly expressed in its title. The title to Chapter 197, reads: The primary purpose of the constitutional provision is to prevent fraud or surprise by means of concealed or hidden provisions in an act which the title does not disclose. Clearly, the title to Chapter 197, Laws 1939, expresses the subject matter and purpose of the act. Fowler v. Corlett, supra; Crosthwait v. White, 55 N.M. 71, 226 P.2d 477. So, viewing the act in the light of the various constitutional provisions, we are satisfied that it is not constitutionally objectionable. We conclude that the contract in question is inhibited by statute and that the order of dismissal was properly entered; however, we close the opinion with the feeling expressed in Justice Sadler's special concurring opinion in Kaiser v. Thomson, supra: The judgment will be affirmed, and it is so ordered. LUJAN, SADLER, McGHEE and KIKER, JJ., concur.