Heinfelt

The plaintiffs brought this action to collect a real estate commission alleged to have been earned by them. The court denied recovery on the sole ground that the copartnership, as distinguished from the individuals constituting the same, was not separately licensed under the California Real Estate Act (Deering’s General Laws, 1931, vol. 1, p. 25). The complaint alleged that the plaintiffs P. A. Heinfelt and M. G. Hoffman were copartners doing business under the fictitious firm name and style of National Realty Company, and that they had duly recorded and pub lished the required certificate of such fictitious name. It was further alleged that each of the plaintiffs was duly-licensed. as a real estate broker. ".These allegations were not denied in the answer and were, therefore, admitted (Vickery v. Valdez, 113 Cal. App. 135 [ 298 Pac. 151 ]). The only findings were to the effect that the National Realty Company, as a copartnership, was not alleged and proved to have been licensed as a real estate broker. The plaintiffs have appealed upon the judgment-roll alone and the only question requiring our consideration is whether two individuals who have been duly licensed as real estate…