Court Opinion

ID: 9762831
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:31:59.991972+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:37.794115
License: Public Domain

On Second Motion for Rehearing
The City points out that Sec. 10(a) of Art. 249a, V.A.C.S., in addition to the requirement that the activities defined be pursued as a “profession or business” further requires that it be done “for a fee or other direct compensation.” From this the City argues, as we understand it,3 that subd. 3 does not exempt those who engage in the activities there described if they charge a fee.
*374Our answer to this contention is that subd. 3 exempting those engaged in the activities there described does not condition such exemption on the services being performed, gratuitously and we have no authority to write such condition into the statute.
It is to be noted also that Sec. 13 of the Act makes it a criminal offense only if architectural activities are pursued as a profession or business and a fee is charged. It would seem that if the Legislature intended not to exempt non-professionals who charged a fee it would have made this an offense under Sec. 13. This it did not do.
The motion is overruled.

. Wo quote from its Motion:
“It is respectfully submitted that the exception provided in Subdivision 3 of Section 14, Article 249a, V.A.C.S. is intended to relieve from punishment those who indulge the universal human propensity to offer free advice on architectural or any other matters, but that when one undertakes to charge a fee one comes within the express prohibition contained in Section 1, as to any act in the field defined in Section 10(a), of Article 249a, V.A.C.S.
“At common law every dog was entitled to one bite before his owner was on notice of a vicious propensity; but professional licensing is statutory, not common law, and the statutes are intended not merely to muzzle the habitual offender, but rather to forestall the first bite.”