Court Opinion

ID: 9558463
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:10:03.444611+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:19.360249
License: Public Domain

ELLETT, Chief Justice:
The principal question presented on this appeal is whether a contractor licensed in another state may recover on his construction contracts in Utah where he has no license. Our statute provides that any “person, firm, copartnership, corporation, association, or other organization acting in the capacity of contractor . . . , without a license as herein provided shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.”1 The plaintiff, by constructing condominiums in Utah, comes squarely within the definition of a contractor as set out in our statute.2
This Court has held that the contracts of unlicensed contractors are void. In the case of Olsen v. Reese3 we held:
The authorities are fairly uniform to the effect that failure to obtain a license which is required by a statute enacted solely for revenue purposes does not render contracts made by the offending party void. On the other hand, contracts made by an unlicensed contractor when in violation of a statute passed for the protection of the public are held to be void and unenforceable. Our statute is so worded as to indicate a legislative intent *1111to protect the citizens from irresponsible contractors. The statute, while not comprehensive provides for a small license fee. Control over the contractor is given to the Department of Registration. Upon an appropriate hearing, the department may, for unprofessional conduct, suspend or cancel the license. Good reputation and integrity are essential to obtaining a license and the entire object of the statute is protection of the public against, fraudulent and illegal practice, which have always been recognized as a distinct characteristic of statutes, which are not mere revenue measures. The statute being enacted for the protection of the public, plaintiff’s written contract is void .
The case of Smith v. American Packing & Provision Co.4 held that it was necessary for a plaintiff, where a license is required, to allege that he had the license in order to state a cause of action. A license in another state cannot be substituted for a license in Utah.
The Plaintiff in this case is aware of our clear prior holdings; however, he urges us to overrule the case of Olsen v. Reese (supra, footnote 3). This we refuse to do. We think the case was properly decided, and we confirm the principles of law therein stated to be the law of this state.
Other matters are discussed in plaintiff’s brief; however, they are not meritorious. The judgment of the trial court, holding that plaintiff could not recover, is affirmed. Costs are awarded to the respondent.
HENRIOD, Retired Justice, concurs.
HALL, J., concurs in the result.

. 58-23-18, U.C.A.1953, as amended.

. 58-23-3(3), U.C.A.1953, as amended.

. 114 Utah 411, 416, 200 P.2d 733, 736 (1948).

. 102 Utah 351, 130 P.2d 951 (1942).