Nulter v. State Road Commission of W. Va.

• Decision Date: 15 December 1937
• Docket Number: C. C. 579.
• Citation: 194 S.E. 270,119 W.Va. 312
• Parties: NULTER v. STATE ROAD COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA et al.
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court

194 S.E. 270

119 W.Va. 312

NULTER v. STATE ROAD COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA et al.

C. C. No. 579.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

December 15, 1937

Dissenting opinion.

For majority opinion, see 193 S.E. 549.

RILEY Judge (dissenting).

It is with regret that I dissent from the majority opinion in so far as that opinion undertakes to extend the operation of the "Financial Responsibility Law" contained in chapter 61 of the Acts of the West Virginia Legislature of 1935, to a judgment rendered by a court outside the territorial limits of the state of West Virginia. This act provides that upon the rendition of a judgment against an automobile operator, a resident of the State of West Virginia, by a court in West Virginia or any of her sister states or the Dominion of Canada, which judgment is not satisfied, and a certified copy thereof having been filed with the State Road Commissioner of the state of West Virginia, his operator's license shall be withdrawn. The statute contains no provision for notice or hearing.

I am fully aware of the necessity of having competent automobile drivers on the roads of West Virginia, and the other states of the country. I am equally alert to the fact that legislation such as this, no matter from what source it came no matter what motive prompted it into existence, is dangerous in its character and is contrary to the fundamental political philosophy of the United States, as I view that philosophy. The majority opinion has cited no case in which the operation of a financial responsibility act, enacted by any state, has been made to extend beyond the territorial limits of the state in which the judgment is rendered. And I note also that the Attorney General, both in oral argument as well as in the written brief, has stated no case in which such an act has been construed by any court in the United States to that extent. May not the reason lay in the fact there is no authority in the United States which has gone so far as the majority opinion of this court is undertaking to go? At least, I have found no decision of a court of last resort.

This financial responsibility act includes not only the states belonging to the American Union, but it extends to the Dominion of Canada. In discussing this act, we must look beyond the viewpoint of the instant case. If such an act applies to a judgment of the Dominion of Canada, why cannot it be enlarged to extend to a judgment of a South American Republic? Why not to a judgment of the Republic of France, or Great Britain? The consideration of this question involves no middle ground,...