. . • I ; ·t - • .f · ... .. ~

0

. MOTOR VEHICLES : Registration--1) Operation :

L

Fl LED

~() _. ...... .-I

November 10 , 1952

Department of Revenue State of Missouri Jefferson City, Mi ssouri

11 --r ~ -~--v-

At tention: Mr . Olen B. Curti s , Supervisor

Gentlemen :.

This will be the opinion you requested from this orfice on numerous legal questions which may arise in the administration of t he terms of Conference Committee Substitute for Amended Senate Committee Substitute for House Bi ll No . 283 , 66th General Assembly, relating to the licensing , taxation and regulation of the operation of motor vehicles in this State . Your letter in this behalf reads as follows ~

"Several questions have come up reg arding t he administration and the enforcement of differences in requirements of registra­tion or commercial vehicles under t he ol d Statutes and t he new law , effective July 29 , 1952 , as set out in Conference Committee Substitute for Amended Senate Committee Sub ­stitute for House Bill No . 283 , 66th General Assembly, for which we respectfully request Ln. official opinion to each or the questions lis ted herein :

"1. After the effective date of this law , are all commercial motor vehicles requi red to re - regi ster?

"2 . Is the owner or a commercial motor vehicle required to re - re gister said commercial motor vehicle after the effec t ive date of this law providing he continues to haul the same weight load for which the vehic le has been

Department of Revenue :

"3 t

".5 .

"6 .

previously registered for the year 1952?

If an owner purchased ~9,2 commer­cial l icense for ove r 44, 000 pounds under Section 30l . 06o , 194q Statutes , and this license permitted him to haul up to 56,ooo pounds , would this license Parmi t him to haul up t~ 60 , 010 p~unds after the effective date of this new law?

Several commercial truck owners en­gaged in heavy hauling purchased truck license for gross weight of 44 , 000 pounds under the (old l aw referred to above ), exp~eting to be permitted with special permit issued by the Highway Department, to haul to t he limit of the parmi t which could be 75 10QO pounds to A5,000 pounds on special occasions , with-

\

out additional fees . Would t his practic~ be permitted under the new schedule of fees as outlined in this House Bill 283 , or must he re - register , payi ng for tho maximum allowed und~r Souse Bill 283 before being permitted to obtain or operate unde r specia l e xcess weight permit?

When a regis t rant desires to increase the weight for which the comm"6rcial mo_tor vehicle is licensed , raay credit be allowed for fees originally paid to (at Motor Vehicl e Registration Depart­ment ,. · (b ) Public Service Commission

Assuming that commercial motor vehicles reg istered prior to the effec t ive date of t his new l aw are not required to re­register , will a commercial motor vehicle operator be perm1 tted to operate his vehiele as defi ned in Section 301 . 010, s ub- paragraph &, Revised StatU; es of 1949. or as defined in Section 301 . 010 , sub- paragraph 9, of House Bill 283?

- 2-

Department of Revenue :

"8,

Does this law _permit a farmer to (a) borrow, ( b ) l ease , ( c) rent a comrnsreia l motor vehicle from another farmer Who has local com­mercial licen se on his vehicle , f or the purpose of hauling pr operty to t~~ farm of the operator, where the haul is for a greater distance then tvtenty- five miles?

May a Missouri resident lease f r om an out- state corporation or an in­dividual owner, a motor vehicle owned and registered in the name of tho lessor and the vehicle i s not the subject of an agreement for con­ditional sale or l ease T:Ji th the righ t of purchase , operate this ve hic le on the foreign license (1) intra- s tate , ( 2) inter- state , w·ithout registering 1 t in the State of Missouri?'*

So~ of the ques t i ons submitted in your letter are based upon the further question whether the terms of number­ed sections of Chapter 301 , RSJ!o 1949. or the tenns of said House Bill No . 283 . shall be fol lowed in the adt~nistration of the Aet by your Dep8.rtlll&nt where some vehicles were regis ­tered under the o l d law for a year, and where t here is an actual or an apparent conflict between such provi sions of the statutes . Chapter 301 , RSMo 19!t.9 . deal t , as do the· provis ions of said House Bill }ro . 283 deal , with licensing end taxing , among other provisions , of motor vehicles used upon the high­ways of t his St.ate , both for :passenger and commercial purposes . Your letter indica tes t hat here your Department is more par ­ticularly concerned with th~ questions of registration of com­mercial moto r vehicles and the hauling weights and fees or taxes to be paid for the operation of such vehicles after July 29, 1952 ,. after said House Bill No . 283 goes into effeet. Investigation of the eff ee tive d~te of said House Bi ll No . 283 discloses t h at t h is bill was Truly Agreed To and Finally Pass­ed by the 66th General Assembly on March 24, 1952~ and tha t the General Assembly finally adjourned on April 29, 1952 . Section 29 of Article III of the Constitution of t his State , 1945, provides t hat no l avr passed by the General Assembly shall take effect until ninety days after t he adjournment of t he sEJssion at which i t ~tas enacted. Such periods of time and ' provisions , therefore 1. establish Jul y 29 , 1952, as the eff ecti ve date of said House Bill Uo. 283 .

- 3-

Department of' Revenue :

Section 301.030 , 'RSUo 1949, provided for a system of registration of' motor ve hicles of all type s .

reads: A part of Secti on 1 of Section 301.030 so providing

"~ * * Comcencing July 1 , 1949 , motor vehicles shall be regi stered for a period of twel ve consecutive calendar ~ntbs .* * * • n

Section 301. 03 0 of House Bill No . 283 , make s a distinction i n the pe riod of time for TJb.ich motor vehicles shall be regi stered aocord~ng to t he t~pe of vehicle. Sec­tion 1 of Section 301.030 , House Bill{No . 283 , concerning such r egistration s tates , in part :

u* if. * Com::nencing July 1 , 1949 , motor vehicles , otber than cor.nnercial motor vehicl es , shal l be registered for a period of twel ve cons ecutive months . '* * * ·"

Section 3 of Section 301 . 030 of House Bill l1o . 283 , respecting tho registra tion of c ommercial mot or vehicles , in part, reads as follows :

"All co!IC1.8rcial motor vehicles must be registered with the direc tor on a calen-dar year basis . ~ * -:s. • "

Sections 301. 060 in Chapter 301 and 30l .06o in said House Bill No . 283 ~ each, in providing for the r egistration fee to be paid on motor vehicl e s refe rs to the license fee as "annual registration tees • " 'i'hi s support s and supplements the quoted text f rom Section 301.030 , RSUo 1949, and the quoted text in Section 3 of Section 301.030 of s a id Bouse Bill No . 283 , supra , as indicating that the Legis lature intended in the enac tment of such above - quoted provisions , that the registrati on of mo tor vehicles shall be for a period of twelve months and on a yearly bas is . If t hen, a comme rcial ~ebicle has been registered prior to the effective date of said House Bill No. 283, suc h commercial motor vehicle may no t be required to be re - registered during tho period of its exis ting certificate of regis trati on. We believe the Legi&ature must have said in express terms that a new registration of such motor vehicles nould be required after the effective date of said House Bill Uo . 283 and within t he one year period after the date of the previous regis tration of such motor vehicle before any such

-4-

..

Department of Revenue :

vehiclea may be required to be registered during 1952. The Legis­lature has not so said. The succinct answer then to question No. 1 1.s No •

..._ _

Considering your second question whether the owner of a commercial motor ve~cle may be required to re- register such vehicle atter the ef£ect1ve date of said House Bill No. 283 providing be oont1.nues to haul the same weight of load tor which the vehicle has previousl y been r egistered for t he year 1952, our reply is t hat, s~e we have held tn our answer to question number one, supra, that a commercial vehicle registered 1n 1952, prior to the effective date ot said House Bill No. 28), is not required to be re-registered dUrtng 1952, the operator of ~ch commercial vehicle may continue to haul during 1952 the same weight load for which guch vehicle had been previousl y registered. Our direct answer , therefore, to your question mulher two is No.

Your third question inquires, if an ow.ner purcnased a 1952 canmer~ial vehicle license for over 44,000 pounds under Section 301.0601 RSUo 1949, and such license permi t ted ·the operator to haul up to 5t>,OOO pounds, may such license permit him to hau~ up to 60,010 pounds after the effective date of said House Bill No. 283. We see no reason, n or do we find any authority to the contrary, why the operator of such commercial vehicle shoul d not be permitted to haul up to the maximum rate ltmit, whatever it may b~. during 1952, where t he operator has registered for the hi ghest weight haul par­mi tted during 1952, and during the f'u~l period of his registration license tor 1952. There is no provision in Chapter 301, RSMo 1949. or in said House Bill Ho. 283. preventing the operator from hauling whatever t he maximum weight load woald be in 1952 where he has previously pr ocured a license for a commercial motor vehicle for the full year of 1952. Our answer. therefore, to your third question is Yea.

You submit 1n your fourth question the proposition first, Ylhether if. and your letter ao indicates that this practice has been followed, some canm.ercial truck owners. &ngaged in heavy hauling, who have purchased truck licenses under the terms of Chapter 301. RSllo 1949~ for gross w.e1ght of 44,000 pounds, anticipating that they wi11 be perm1 tted under a special pel"'!li t from the Highway Department to haul the limit under such spec1a1 permit which could be 75,000 pounds to 85,000 on special occasions. may be permitted so to do without additional fees, and would this practice be f ollowed under House Bill #28), or must such ~ck owner re-register and pay for the maxtmwM allowed under House Bill #283 before being permitted to obtain such special excess weight certificate or operate under such permit.

We believe t hat when a eo~~ercial truck license has been

-5-

.,

Department of Revenue

issued 1;o the owner for hauling a gross weight ot 4,.41 000 pounds, un«er tbe old law for one year, he may be pe~itted to haul, under a special certi£1cate issued by the ott"icial authorized to issue such certificates under Highway Department lawa, up to the full lind t of such special perlll;its, without such owp.er and operator being required to re-r·eglster such vehicle or before being permitted to obtain and operate sueh vehicle under such special excess weight permit.

Manifestly, such operator of such eommerelal truck would be •nt1tled under his license ' to operate for the ru11 period ot a year covered bJ the 11eenee and to ~ul a gross weight of 44.000 pouada under sub•aeotion (l,) of Section )Ol.06o, RStlo 1949, w1 th­out re~reg1atering atter the new law takes ef.feo~., Section )04,.200 Rsllfo · 1949~ authorizes the Chle:f Engineer of the Highwar Department, and ln mun1c1pal1t1es. certain ~cipal authorltlea ot this State, to issue special over-weight certifica1ies up.on occasion. which said Se~tion 304.2QO reads as tollowa:

"1. The chief engineer of the state highwaJ department., whenever in his opini on the pub~ic safety or public interest so justi!'lea, may issue special permits for vehicles exceeding the limitations on width, length, height and weight herein specit1ed. such permits shall be issued only f~r a single trip or for a definite periodf not beyond the date of expiration of the vehicle registration and shall designate the h1gh~ya and bridges which may be used umter the authority or such permit. ·

"2• 1'he ot'fieer in charge of tbe maintenance of the at~eeta or any municipality may issue such permit• for the use of the streets by such vehicles within the limits of such municipalitie~.ft

This section authorizes the issuance of overweight certitlcatea by such spec1f1ed otf1.cers w1 thoui regard to the time or the registra­ticm o~ sueh motor vehicles or the period over which 1 t extends. 'l'he spec1a1 overweight permit may be issued tor a definite period not to ex.ceed the expiration date or the registration period expressed in the license.

We believe, therefore, that an owner ot a commercial motor vehlcl•, an occas ion may, under a special overweight permit issued by the 'otficer named 1n aa1.d Section 104,200, haul the full weight load spee1:tied 1n such permit w1 thout pay:ing addi ticmal .feea. and that such motor vehicles need not be re-re.glstered under s-aid Houae

• . .

Department ot R~venue

Bill #28) before t he 01llll.er may obtain such special overweight certificate or operate such motor· vehicle thereuJl.dep. Our mawer, therefore, to the first problem in your fourth question whether the maxll'ilUII weight lim! t may be hauled under a special perm1 t by the o.fflcera named · in Sect-iOll 304.aoo, without addition.al fees. and would this practice be permitted under H<Nse Bill No. 283 is Yea.

On the fUrther question whether t he owner of such commercial truck must re•regiater such motor vehicle, paying for the rrta.xilll111ll we1gbt allo•d undel" House Bill Bo. 283 be tore being, ;perml tted to obtain or operat• under a special ·excess weight permit submitted in your fourth question, our answer 1a No.

Your flttb question asks whether the owner of a commer~1al vehtole has reg istered such vehicle for a certain weight and desires to inoreaae the w~1gbt load for whtcb the vebicle is 11cens•d may

,G& be allowed ore eli t tor the amount of the :fee ol"ig!nally paid to the Motor Vehicle Re g i-stration Departm&nt or the Public Service Commisaio~ We are unable to find any statute providing in expresa terma that such registrant of such commercial motor vehlele is entitled to have credit on t he new fee required upon the increase of t .he weight load he may haul, nor do we t1nd any authorltJ, atatutor7 or otherw1ae, holding that sucb registrant may not be entitled t-o such credlt.

The state 1n the transaetiQn of ita business may, and mould, transact the St ,ate1 s bu~ineas with tb.e peopl·• 1n a .fair,.. Just and reasonable manner,. ac:cordlng t o business prlnciplea ln the same manner and to the ·same extent that the State expecta its c1t1zena to form and carr7 out their agreements wi th the State. It .may not be contended that a license issued by the State when accepted by the licens•e beeomes a contra~t. A license ls merely a pr1v1les•· But even so, when the licensing authoritlea l s aue a license to a licensee to transact busi ness thereunder for a d•r1n1te tee or tax, and that amount has been paid to the State f or the license and late~, if' and when1 the same licensee desires to increase his capaelty or the amount o£ weight to be bau~e.~ under suoh license, a larger fee or tax is r equired for t he greater weight, .ra·trneaa and justice would, as a matter ot publtc poliOJ, where 1t is not prohibited \>y law, require that such licensee should be entitled as a cre41t on the larger fee to be paid for the privilege of hauling great•r weight by the amount he has paid originally to haul the lesser welght. SUch transactt10D wCIIlld not constitute a eol)traot, yet 1t is an undel"'tak11ag betweea the State and t h e 1.1cenaee, wbi-ch should lte treated and carrted out between the State tlwough its autl;torized officers and the license• aa would any other lawtul business trana­aoticm by the same rules or t'airneaa and jus1;1:ee wbloh .b1nd 1nd1 vidual• We belie••·· therefore,~ that oredlt should b8' g1'fen bJ both the Motor

••

Department ot Revenue

Vehicle Regi stration Department and the Public Service Commiaaion on larger feea later demanded of a registrant tor fees orlginally paid f or a license where an increase or weight or any other condition ariaea calling tor a larger tee to operate such vehicle. Our answer then to Jour titth question is Yea.

Your sixth tn~iry is, whet her a commercial motor vehicle regist-red prior to July 291 1952, the effective date of House Bill No. 2831 and not required to be re-reglstere41 may be permitted to operate such vehicle as defined ln subsection t~) ot Section 301.010, RSNo 1949, or as defined in subsection (10) ot Section 301.010 ot House Bill No. 28).

Sald au~aectiona ' (8) and (10) are both descriptive definitions gl Ylng t he meaning ot "Local commercial motor veh1cle. •

We believe the operator of a local commercial motor vech1cle previously registered shoul d be permitted to operate the veh~ole it' it comes wltllin the det1D1tion given in either ~ said aub• aeoti ona (8) or (10), noted, and this should be determined as tbe cond1 tiaua 1n eaoh caae ariae and appear at the t i me.

Your aeYenth question 1a,. does House Bill No. 28.3 permit a far.mer to borrow, leaae or rent a c~ereial motor vehicle troa another farmer who haa a local o~eroial license f or hia motor vehicle, tor the purpose of hauling propert y to the .tara or the operator where the distance i s greater than twent y-five m11ea.

Section .301.010, the Def1n1tion section ot Chapter 301 ot U1saour1 Reviaed Stat u tes, CUmulative Suppl ement of 1951, tn sub­section (10) de~inea a "Local commercia l motor vehicle• as followa:

"(10) •Local comme~oial motor vehiole,• a commercial motor vehicle whose operationa are confined solely to a munici pality and that area extending not more t han twenty-f1Ye mil es t heretramJ or a commercial motor vehicle whose propert y carrying operations are confined solely to the tran aportation of property owned bJ any person who i s the owner or operator of such vehicle. to or tram a farm owned by such person or under hia control by Tirtue ot a landlord and tenant l ease; provided that any such pro-perty transported to an7 such farm is f or use in the operation of auoh farmJ"

. . ,. .

Department of Revenue

The gist ot this question narrows down to the above quoted definition. In the former section ot Section 301.010, R8MO 19491 Which was subsection (8), tne definition was as tollowas

"(d) When controlled or operated by any person principally engaged in farming wh$n used exclusively in the transpor-tation ot agricultural products or live-stock t o or from a farm or f arms or in the transportation of supplies t o or from a farm or tarma;"

The intention of the Legislature seems t o ue to be clear. The Legislature meant to quality vehicles of f armers aa "looal oo ... rolal.• It la alao evident t hat they intended to continue that qualitldat10R into the present law. The change belns now that the owntJ or bPerator or the vehicle ia required to be the ow.oer ot tbe proper tranapor£ed and the property muat ~e used in the operation of the t'arm. ?rom tbe

the new statute is drawn, it can therefore be aaid that it doea

7 permit any farmer to (a) borrow, (b) loaso, or (c) rent a , mmerc1al motor vehicle from another farmer who has a commercial motor

ve~cle license on hls vehicle for the purpose of hauling propert7 to the farm o{ tho operator. The borrower must further qualify hlmaelt by being tHe owner of the property which be is hauling and he muat be the owner or lessor ot the farm to or trom wbioh he is hauling.

The distance of the haul we believe t o bo ruled out by the use o~ tho word Nor• after a semicolon in subsection (10). Prom the text lt appears that tho semicolon prior to the word "or• and the word "or• givea a completely alternative definition ot "Local commeroial motor vehicle," both aa it was arranged 1n the old Section .)01.010, ault­seetion (8), paragraph (d) thereof, and as it is now arranged in the new section.

In Rust v. Missouri Dental Board, J48 Mo. 616, l.o. 627, 155 s.w. (2d) 80, l.c. 85-86, tho Court salda "'or• is seldom uaed 1n penal statutes other than as a disjunctive. 48 c.J. Seo. 71 P. 1127.• We believe that "or• waa and is intended as a disjunctive in tbia statute.

In anawer to your seventh question we believe that a farmer mar borrow, lease or rent a commercial motor vehicle from another farmer who baa a local commercial license on hia vehiole, provided that the borrower or lessor 1~ the operator ot the vehioLe, and subject to tae turtber provisions and qualifications ot s~baeotiOD (10), Seotion .)01.010, ~isaourl Revised Statutes, Cumulative Supplement, 1951 •

.. 9-

Department of Revenue

Your eighth que.stion submits ·the following: May a Mi ssouri residen·t leaae, from an out state corporation, or an 1ndi vidual owner, a motor vehicle owned and registered in the name of the lessor, and the v•hicle is nGt the subject of an agreement tor conditional sale or lease with the right o£ purchase, and under the leaae operate such vehicle on the foreign license (1) intra- state, {2) interstate, wit hout registering it in the State of Missouri.,

We believe t he answer to t his question is: No.

A Missouri resident~ as lessee of a commercial mo·cor vehicle, owned and l'egistered by a corporation or an individual in a .fo-reign state, the vehicle· not the subjeet of an agreement for condit i onal sale or leas• with the right of purchase,. and the operator is not entitled to the possession thereof as a mortgagor, has no righ t what ever to operate such V"OhicJ.e on the hi ghways of this State without reg istering the vehicle in thi .s State. In order to do either an interstate or · intrasta•• business with such v.eh1el•, assuming 41s. business is located in Missouri, such l.easee 'mllst regist~r the vehicle ln Missouri. 12 e.J. 103, under the subject of "C~(EROE" states 1 ts text in support of this view with the following:

11 In the exercise of its general police power and its power to license occupation's and busi• nesaea, a s t ate or munici pality may impose a license tax for the doing of local or domestic busine-s -s within its t erritorial jurisdiction_, although the propert y involved may have come originally from another state, or although a cont ract r elati ng t o the business may have b een made in anothe r state or although the person or corpora tion involved may also be engaged t n interstate con~erce, or alt hough the business~ when carried on wholly within the state. may 1nvo.lve del1Ter1es outside the state .. * ~r *·•tt

Section 301.020, RSMo 1949, is 1n part as t ol lowa:

" Everi owner or a motor vehicle or trailer, whleb:shaif be operated or driven upon tne hi ghways of this state except as herein otherwise expressly p1,ovided, shall fi l e , by mail or other­wise, 1n the office of t he dlrec~or oE reY.nue, an applica t ion Cor reg1strat 10R on a blank to be furnished bJ the direc tor of revenue for that purpose, containing:."'

In th.e matter of Hendriek v.~ Maryland, · 235 U.-s. 610, l..c. 623• 624, 59 r... Ed • . )85, · 1.-c.· .391, the Court said:

•

. .

Department o~ Reve~e

"In view of the many decisions of this court there can be no serious doubt that where a sta te at its own expense furnishes special facilities for t he use of those engaged in commerce, interstate as well as domestic, it may exact c om~ensation t herefor. The amount of t he charges and the me thod o~ collection are primarily for determination by the sta t e itself; and so long as they are reasonable and are fixed according to some uniform, fair, and practical standard, they constitute no burden on intersta te commerce. * ~ *"

We do not believe the provision of our statute can be interpreted to interfere with or put an unreasonable burden upon interstate commerce so as to come within aD1 prohibitions of the commerce clause. If ~oh lessee is doing business as a Mi ssouri enterprise, the foreign state license on such vehicle would fUrnish him no protection whatever 1n operating a vehicle on the highway of Missouri.

CONCLUSION

It is, therefore, the opinion of this Department, considering the foregoing, that:

1) Commercial motor vehicles previously registered during 1952 are not required to re-register after July 29, 19$2, the effective date of the n ew truck law, House Bill No. 283;

2) The owner of a commercial motor vehicle is not required t o re-register said vehicle after the effective date of House Bill No. 28) if he continues to haul the same weight load for which the vehicle b.aa been previousl r registered tor t he year 1952J

)} I£ the owner of a commercial motor vehicle purchased a license tor over 44,000 pounds under Section 301.060, RSUo 1949, permitting him to haul up to ,56,000 pounds, the maximum weight, he would be permitted under such license to haul up to 60,010 weight load after JUly 29, 1952, the effective date of the new law, during 1952;

~) Where commercial motor veh icle owners engaged 1n heavy hauling have purchased at ruck license for gross weight of 44,000 pounds under Chapter 301, expecting to be permitted under a special permit issued by the Highway Department to haul to the limit of the permit which could be 151 000 to 851 000 pounda on special occasions, he may do so wit hout paring addi tional teea. This practice may be

-11-

.. ..

Department of Revenue

permitted under the new schedule of fees as outlined in House Bill No. 28) without the owner being required to re-register such commer­cial motor vehicle and without being required to pay for the mzximum weight a llowed under House Bill No. 283. beforebeing permitted t o obta1n such special excess wei ght permit or to operate thereunder;

5) When a registrant of a commercial motor vehicle desires to increase the weight for which such vehicle is licensed he may be allowed credit on increased license fees for fees originally paid to (a) the Motor Vehicle Registration Depar tment, or (b) the Public Service Commission;

6) An operator of a local commercial motor vehicle previously register ed, may operate the vehicle on t he h!~hways of this State if it complies with either of said sub-sectiona (8) or (10) noted. under conditions then and there appearing;

7) A f armer may borrow. lease or rent a commercial motor vehicle from another farmer who has a license for such vehicle for hauling property to the farm of the operator for a gr eater distance t han twenty-five miles, if he qualifies to do so under the terms of Section 10 of Kouse Bill No. 28);

8) A Missouri resident assuming t hat his business is located in flissouri, may not under a lease of a commercial moto.r vehicle owned and registered b:y a corporation or individual in a foreign State , and such vehicle not being the subject of an agreement for conditional sale or lease with the right of pucbaae, and such lessee not being entitled to t he possession thereof, as a mortgagor, do either an interstate or an intrastate business with such vehicle on the highways of this State without registering the vehicle in this State.

APPROVED:

:6~1b3 Attorney General

GWC :ir

Respectfully submitted,

GEORGE W. CRO\~EY Assistant Attorney General