Lenes

Plaintiffs appeal from an order dismissing their second amended complaint (hereinafter complaint) after an order sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend that complaint. For the reasons set forth, we affirm the order.

The complaint alleges, so far as is here pertinent, as follows:

The complaint then alleges payments (including interest at the 20 percent rate) and seeks recovery (by credit on the principal) of those payments with treble damages.

From the record it appears that defendants were, and are, duly licensed as personal property brokers under the provisions of the Personal Property Brokers Law. The ruling on the demurrer necessarily took into account that fact appearing in plaintiffs’ complaint. We consider the issues raised in this appeal from the same standpoint.

I

In spite of plaintiffs’ attempt to characterize the transaction as a “loan” within the meaning of article XX, section 22, of the California Constitution, it was, as plaintiffs’ complaint shows, a sale and not a loan. The distinction between the two kinds of transaction was described by the Supreme Court in Milana v. Credit Discount Co. (1945) 27 Cal.2d 335 , at page 339 [ 163 P.2d 869 , 165…