Martin

On June 12, 1974, plaintiff entered into a subcontract with defendant Mitchell Cement Contracting Co. (Mitchell) to perform certain masonry work on a building being constructed at 946 North Mariposa Avenue in the City of Los Angeles. He performed the work involved, was paid only part of the price, and sued for the balance. He recovered judgment against Mitchell and its bondsman. The defendants have appealed; we affirm.

The material facts are not in dispute. Plaintiff holds, and at all times herein involved held, a valid license as a general contractor. He does not hold, and never has held, a specialty license as a masonry contractor. The subcontract herein involved called for masonry work only and only masomy work was performed.

The sole question before us on this appeal is whether plaintiff may recover for his work even though he did not hold a specialty license as a masonary contractor. We hold that he can.

The applicable statutory provisions (contained in the Business and Professions Code) are as follows:

Purportedly acting under the authority of section 7059, the Contractors State License Board has adopted rules, the pertinent rule being subdivision (b) of rule…