Court Opinion

ID: 9762830
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:31:59.986589+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:37.387336
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing
HUGHES, Justice.
In its motion for rehearing the City of Austin has one point in which it asserts we erred because of the existence of these uncontroverted facts:
1. Appellant.is not licensed to practice architecture in Texas.
2. The compensation sought by appellant is for “proposals of mine (appellant) to revise the architectural plan for the auditorium.”
These facts are uncontroverted. If they, standing alone, preclude, as a matter of law, recovery by appellant then this motion should be granted and the judgment of the Trial Court affirmed.
It is the City’s contention that Art. 249a, V.A.C.S., regulating the practice of architecture, and its construction and application in Clark v. Eads, Tex.Civ.App. Fort Worth, 165 S.W.2d 1019, writ ref., w.o.m., compels the relief it now seeks.
We quote from Sec. 10(a) of Art. 249a, supra:
“Any person, or firm, who for a fee or other direct compensation therefor, shall engage in the planning, or designing, or supervising the construction of buildings to be erected or altered in this State, by or for other persons than themselves, as a profession or business, and shall represent or advertise themselves as architects, architectural designers, or other title of profession or business using some form of the word ‘architect’ shall be considered as practicing the profession of architecture in this State, and shall be required to comply with the provisions of this Act; * * * »
We also quote Sec. 14, subd. 3 of Art. 249a:
“This Act shall not .apply: * * *
“3. To any person or firm who prepares plans and specifications for the erection or alteration of a building or supervises the erection or alteration of a building by or for other persons than himself, or themselves, but does not in any manner represent himself, herself, or themselves to be an architect, architectural designer, or other title of profession or business using some form of the word ‘Architect’.”
We submit that there is no practical difference between the words “planning, or designing, or supervising the construction of buildings to be erected or altered in this State” as contained in Sec. 10(a) of the Act defining the practice of architecture *373and the words “who prepares plans and specifications for the erection or alteration of a building, or supervises the erection or alteration of a building” as contained in Sec. 14, subd. 3 of the Act defining to whom the Act should not apply.
Now unless there is a valid and substantial difference between Sec. 10(a) of the Act defining those who must comply with the Act and Sec. 14, subd. 3 of the Act defining those who are exempt from the Act then we are confronted with a situation similar to that found in the Naturopathic Act held by us to be invalid in Wilson v. State Board of Naturopathic Examiners, 298 S.W.2d 946, writ ref., N.R.E., on the ground of uncertainty in that the Act both granted and denied naturopaths the right to practice medicine.
We do, however, find a substantial difference between the sections under discussion. That difference lies in the italicized portion of Sec. 10(a) which limits the application of the Act to those who engage in the described activities “as a profession or business.” 1
The words “as a profession or business” are omitted in excluding Sec. 14, subd. 3 and it is our opinion that the application of the Act is to be determined by ascertaining whether or not appellant has engaged in the specified activities as a “profession or business.”
There is evidnce in this record from which a fact finder could find that appellant was not so engaged. This evidence, whether pleaded or not, prevents the rendition of a summary judgment. Womack v. Allstate Insurance Company, Tex., 296 S.W.2d 233.
The decision in Eads, supra,2 is not controlling here. There the plaintiff, suing for compensation for architectural services, pleaded that he was a graduate architectural engineer, that he had practiced his trade and profession in the State of Texas as designer, draftsman, architect, engineer and engineer of buildings and structures. When asked if he had always held himself out as an architect he answered “Sure.”
Obviously the court was correct in Eads in holding that the plaintiff was required to obtain a license and that without one he could not recover.
The motion is overruled.

. Another difference is that this section prescribes “and who shall represent or advertise themselves” as architects whereas Sec. 14, subd. 3 omits the word “advertise.”

. This is the only appellate decision which discusses or cites Art. 249a, V.A.C.S. This statute has been amended several times since the Eads decision but the provisions involved here have remained practically unchanged.