Bleon v. Emery
Decision Date | 18 September 1922 |
Docket Number | 3849 |
Citation | 60 Utah 582,209 P. 627 |
Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Parties | BLEON v. EMERY, Sheriff |
Rehearing denied October 4, 1922.
Original application by Sylvan Bleon for a writ of habeas corpus against C. Frank Emery, as Sheriff of Salt Lake County.
DENIED, and petitioner remanded to custody.
H. L Mulliner, of Salt Lake City, for plaintiff.
Harvey H. Cluff, Atty. Gen., and Wm. A. Hilton and J. Robert Robinson, Asst. Attys. Gen., for defendant.
The plaintiff was charged in the city court of Salt Lake City with having violated the provisions of title 69, Comp. Laws Utah 1917, constituting sections 3970 to 3990, and with violating that title as amended by chapter 78, Laws Utah 1919, and by chapters 81, 82, and 83, Laws Utah 1921. Reference will hereinafter be made to the particular provisions of the foregoing chapters which are in question here. A warrant was duly issued upon the complaint filed as aforesaid, and plaintiff was arrested and taken into custody, and was thus restrained of his liberty by the defendant as sheriff of Salt Lake county. After having been arrested and being in custody as aforesaid plaintiff filed his petition in this court for a writ of habeas corpus, which was duly issued, and to which the defendant has made return in which the reasons why plaintiff was taken into custody and is being restrained of his liberty are duly set forth. The matter was submitted to this court upon the allegations of plaintiff's petition and the return of the defendant, and upon the printed briefs filed by the respective parties.
The theory upon which plaintiff bases his right to a discharge in this proceeding is tersely stated by his counsel in his printed brief in the following words:
"Plaintiff has brought his petition for a writ of habeas corpus based upon the ground that he cannot be compelled and is not required under the Constitution of the state of Utah to pay another license fee for the privilege of operating a touring car of the same horse power as that for which he has already paid the annual tax,"
Plaintiff also urges that by being compelled to pay further registration fees each time he disposes of one car and obtains another, or if he exchanges or trades one car for another, he is discriminated against and is deprived of the equal protection of the law.
Our motor vehicle law, as stated above, is found in the several chapters to which we have referred, and covers the whole subject of regulating and registering automobiles or motor vehicles and the payment of registration fees, etc. The sections of the motor vehicle law are very numerous, and the provisions thereof are so intermingled that, in the interest of brevity, we will merely state the effect of the provisions that are involved here, rather than to copy the sections in which they are contained.
There are numerous other provisions of the motor vehicle law, which, if construed together, as they must be, make it very clear that the law was intended as a regulatory measure to protect the owners of motor vehicles, so far as that can be done by the identification of each owner, as well as of each vehicle, from fraudulent transfers and from thefts, etc.; that it was also intended as a revenue measure, to raise funds for the construction and maintenance of paved, macadamized, and other roads. The fact that the statute is both a regulatory measure and a revenue measure in no way affects its validity. In Berry, Automobiles (3d Ed.) § 110, the author says:
"A regulatory measure may also be a revenue measure without being objectionable on that account."
In order that proper roads might be constructed and maintained, the Legislature authorized the issuance of so-called road bonds and $ 7,000,000 worth of such bonds have been issued and the fees derived from the registration fees aforesaid, after defraying the expenses incident to the registration of motor vehicles, etc., are set apart in a fund called the "Motor Vehicle Fund," which is exclusively devoted to the payment of interest as it accrues upon the road bonds aforesaid and to create a sinking fund for the payment of the principal thereof as the bonds mature.
From what has been said it is clear that plaintiff's objection to the motor vehicle law is that, after he had duly registered his motor vehicle and had paid the annual registration fee, and he then exchanges or trades his registered motor vehicle for another of the same horse power, he must again pay the registration fee for the motor vehicle he has acquired as aforesaid, notwithstanding that he has paid the full annual fee for the car originally owned by him. This, no doubt, is precisely what the law requires of him. Counsel for petitioner in his reply brief, however, vigorously insist that, although a person who sells his motor vehicle and buys another must pay the additional fee required by the statute, yet that in case of an exchange of vehicles of equal horse power by the owners thereof such is not the case. This contention is based upon the theory that, the owner having paid one registry fee, the right to use a vehicle of the same horse power continues during the whole year, and thus, where there is merely an exchange of vehicles of the same horse power by the owners thereof, each one retains the right in his license to operate the vehicle to the end of the registry year, while such is not the case where one buys another vehicle. In making this contention it seems to us counsel clearly ignores the very language of the statute. As already pointed out, the statute says, "Upon the transfer of ownership of a vehicle its registration shall expire." (Italics ours.) Counsel would have us interpret the statute as though it read "upon the sale of a vehicle," etc. In using the word "transfer" the Legislature intended to and did include both a transfer by exchange as well as one by sale. We must assume that if the Legislature had intended to limit the effect of the statute to sales or new purchases, only appropriate language to effectuate that purpose would have been used, and not the sweeping language that is used. Then, again, it is not easy to understand how the registration of vehicles can be said to have expired upon transfer of ownership, and yet remain in force after such transfer. If the registration of a vehicle expires upon the transfer of ownership, it necessarily expires whether such ownership is transferred by means of purchase or by means of an exchange. The ownership of a vehicle is transferred by an exchange between A. and B. precisely as it would be if B. had purchased a vehicle from A. The statute therefore covers one method of transfer precisely the same as it does the other, and the courts can make no distinction. It is utterly incomprehensible to the writer how it can successfully be urged that the registration of every motor vehicle expires upon the transfer of ownership, but, notwithstanding that fact, if the ownership be transferred by means of a trade or exchange of vehicles, it does not expire, but continues in force. No doubt, in case a transfer occurs after the 1st day of September, only one-half...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Solberg v. Davenport
...P. 1177); Saviers v. Smith, 101 Ohio St. 132 (128 N.E. 269); State v. Preston, 103 Ore. 631 (206 P. 304); [211 Iowa 620] Bleon v. Emery, 60 Utah 582 (209 P. 627); State v. Caplan, 100 Vt. 140 (135 A. 705); Jasnowski v. Board of Assessors, 191 Mich. 287 (157 N.W. 891); Kane v. State of New J......
-
Thompson v. Harris
...... On habeas corpus this court is generally limited to the. question of whether the committing court had jurisdiction to. try and commit. See Bleon v. Emery , 60 Utah. 582, 209 P. 627. It is clear that the failure of the. informations to state a public offense cannot generally be. reached by ......
-
House of Tobacco, Inc. v. Calvert
...purposes. Payne v. Massey, 145 Tex. 237, 196 S.W.2d 493; Rapp & Son v. Kiel, 159 Cal. 702, 115 P. 651 (1911, Dictum); Bleon v. Emery, 60 Utah 582, 583, 209 P. 627 (1922); Mahany on Texas Taxes (1946), § 21.05, p. 642; Cf. Carter v. State Tax Commission, 98 Utah 96, 96 P.2d 727, 126 A.L.R. 1......
-
Hartman v. Meier
......(Hendrich v. Maryland, 235. U.S. 610, 35 S.Ct. 140, 59 L.Ed. 385; In re Hoffert,. 34 S.D. 271, 148 N.W. 20, 52 L. R. A., N. S., 949; Bleon. v. Emery, 60 Utah 582, 209 P. 627; Kane v. State, 81. N.J.L. 594, Ann. Cas. 1912D, 273, 80 A. 453, L. R. A. 1917B,. 553.). . . Where. ......