Curtis v. Pfost

Decision Date03 April 1933
Docket Number5959
Citation53 Idaho 1,21 P.2d 73
PartiesHARRY B. CURTIS, Appellant, v. EMMITT PFOST, as Commissioner of Law Enforcement of the State of Idaho, Respondent
CourtIdaho Supreme Court

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-MOTOR VEHICLES-UNIFORM REGISTRATION ACT.

1. Court must uphold act unless it is clearly unconstitutional.

2. Where legislature acts within scope of power, and no facts appear as to reasons that actuated it, presumption of constitutionality stands, unless no fair reason can be assigned for legislative action.

3. Legislative classification of motor-truck operated for transportation of merchandise or raw products for hire as commercial truck, and requiring payment of fee fifty per cent in excess of fees for similar trucks not operated for hire held not unconstitutional as unreasonable or discriminatory (I. C. A., sec. 48-101, subd. aa, and sec. 48-127, subds. c d; Const. U.S. , Amend. 14, sec. 1; Const. Ida., art. 1 secs. 1-3, art. 3, sec. 19, and art. 7, sec. 5).

4. Legislative exclusion of trucks used exclusively within boundaries of incorporated city or village, or within three miles of boundaries thereof from which delivery is made, from classification of commercial trucks, held not unconstitutional as arbitrary (I. C. A., sec. 48-101, subd aa, and sec. 48-127, subds. c, d; Const. U.S. , Amend. 14, sec. 1; Const. Ida., art. 1, secs. 1-3; art. 3, sec. 19, and art. 7, sec. 5).

5. Exception of motor-truck owned and operated by person engaged in farming or stock-raising, and employing truck for transporting products of husbandry, from classification of commercial truck, held not unconstitutional as arbitrary (I. C. A., sec. 48-101, subd. aa, and sec. 48-127, subds. c, d; Const. U.S. , Amend. 14, sec. 1; Const. Ida., art. 1, secs. 1-3, art. 3, sec. 19, and art. 7, sec. 5).

6. Person trucking solely for mining company pursuant to contract held operator of "commercial truck" and liable for license fees as provided in statute (I. C. A., sec. 48-101, subd. aa, and sec. 48-127, subds. c, d).

7. Supreme court will not consider question not raised by pleading.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, for Ada County. Hon. Charles E. Winstead, Judge.

Appeal from a judgment dismissing the action. Affirmed.

Affirmed.

Paris Martin, for Appellant.

The legislature may not by its fiat convert a contract carrier into a common carrier, and, while a state may regulate the highways, it may not regulate private business done on them. (Michigan Pub. Utilities Com. v. Duke, 266 U.S. 570, 45 S.Ct. 191, 69 L.Ed. 445; Buck v. Kuykendall, 267 U.S. 307, 314, 45 S.Ct. 324, 69 L.Ed. 623; Frost v. Railroad Com., 271 U.S. 583, 46 S.Ct. 605, 70 L.Ed. 1101, 47 A. L. R. 457; Smith v. Cahoon, 283 U.S. 553, 51 S.Ct. 582, 75 L.Ed. 1264.)

Bert H. Miller, Attorney General, and Ariel L. Crowley, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

The statute questioned by this appeal is constitutional and valid in every respect as within the power of the legislature to regulate the use of highways. (Smallwood v. Jeter, 42 Idaho 169, 244 P. 149; State v. Koser, 116 Ore. 581, 242 P. 621; Barney v. Board of Railroad Commrs., 93 Mont. 115, 17 P.2d 82; Stephenson v. Binford, 53 F.2d 509.)

SUTPHEN, D. J. Givens, Morgan, Holden and Wernette, JJ., concur.

OPINION

SUTPHEN, D. J.

Appellant seeks to enjoin the Commissioner of Law Enforcement of the State of Idaho from enforcing the provisions of secs. 48-101 and 48-127, I. C. A., relating to "commercial trucks." It appears from appellant's complaint that he is a resident of the state engaged in hauling mining supplies and equipment from Mountain Home, Idaho, to Atlanta, Idaho, under contract with the St. Joe Lead Company; that he owns several trucks and all are used exclusively in connection with the mining and related enterprises of the St. Joe Lead Company, the hauling being done over the public highways of the state; that appellant maintains no hourly schedules and has no termini in either Mountain Home or Atlanta and no freight is collected, no passengers carried, and no bills of lading are issued in connection with such enterprise except such as arise in the incidental business of the St. Joe Lead Company; that he does no general hauling for the public for hire, and that the trucks of the appellant are licensed under I. C. A., sec. 48-127, subdivision c. Appellant complains that the respondent Commissioner of Law Enforcement, unless restrained, will institute proceedings against appellant to compel him to register his automobiles and license them as "commercial trucks" under the provisions of I. C. A., secs. 48-101 and 48-127, which would require him to pay a fifty per cent additional license fee. A demurrer to the complaint was sustained and judgment entered by the court below dismissing the action, from which appellant appeals.

The Uniform Registration Act, I. C. A., sec. 48-101, subd. aa, provides as follows:

"The term 'commercial truck,' as employed in this chapter means a motor truck operated for the transportation of merchandise or raw products for hire, whether such truck so operated be engaged causally or continuously: provided, however, this shall not apply to trucks used exclusively within the boundaries of any incorporated city or village of the state of Idaho, or exclusively within three miles of the boundaries of any city or village from which delivery is made. Nor shall such definition be applicable to a motor truck owned and operated by a person actually engaged in farming or stock raising and employing such motor truck for the purpose of transporting the products of husbandry."

And I. C. A., sec. 48-127, provides, in part, as follows: . . . .

"The fees for licensing all motor vehicles owned or used within this state (excepting trailers and semi-trailers) shall be as follows: . . . .

"(c) On all motor trucks equipped with pneumatic tires the fee shall be forty cents for each one hundred pounds of weight of the chassis according to the manufacturer's rating, plus eighty cents for each one hundred pounds of the manufacturer's rated carrying capacity. An additional fifty per cent of the fee prescribed herein shall be added for trucks equipped with two or more solid tires.

"(d) The fee for commercial trucks shall be the same as that provided in subdivision c of this section, plus fifty per cent of such fee."

Appellant contends that I. C. A., sec. 48-101, subd. aa, and I. C. A., sec. 48-127, subd. d, are unconstitutional and in violation of sec. 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and of secs. 1, 2 and 3 of art. 1, sec. 19 of art 3, and sec. 5 of art. 7 of the Constitution of the state of Idaho. Appellant urges that he is discriminated against by an improper and unconstitutional classification of motor vehicles, and particularly that the words "for hire" as used in I. C. A., sec. 48-101, subd. aa, do not describe a reasonable and substantial classification of trucks and that such classification is arbitrary, unjust and discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional.

It is our duty to uphold the constitutionality of the act unless its unconstitutionality clearly appears. (Smallwood v. Jeter, 42 Idaho 169, 244 P. 149.) "When the Legislature acts within the scope of its legislative power, when no facts are disclosed as to the reasons which actuated the legislation, the presumption of constitutionality stands, unless no fair reason can be ascribed for the legislative action." (Continental Baking Co. v. Woodring, (D. C.) 55 F.2d 347.)

The appellant argues that the distinction between those carriers operating under contract and those carrying property which is owned by the carrier admits of no diversity of treatment and quotes from the decision in the case of Barney v Railroad Com. (Mont.), dated June 25, 1932, United States Daily, July 7, 1932, page 4, to substantiate his contention. The opinion cited,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Malone v. Van Etten
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • February 4, 1947
    ... ... carriers. H. B. No. 271 (Appendix "A"); 50 Am.Jur., ... p. 321, para. 328. 50 Am.Jur., p. 332, para. 330; Oregon ... Short Line R. Co. v. Pfost, 53 Idaho 559, 27 P.2d 877; ... I.C.A. §§ 59-803 to 59-809, inclusive; ... Smallwood v. Jeter, 42 Idaho 169, at pages 186, 187, ... 244 P. 149; ... I.C.A. § 59-801 ... There ... is no distinction between contract and other carriers ... recognized in our law. Curtis v. Pfost, 53 Idaho 1, ... 21 P.2d 73 ... There ... is nothing in any degree unlawful in inclusion of contract ... and common carriers ... ...
  • Ada County v. Wright
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • June 30, 1939
    ... ... Bragaw, 12 Idaho 265, 85 P. 903; State v ... Dunbar, 39 Idaho 691, 230 P. 33; Smallwood v ... Jeter, 42 Idaho 169, 244 P. 149; Curtis v ... Pfost, 53 Idaho 1, 21 P.2d 73; Garrett Transfer & ... Storage Co. v. Pfost, 54 Idaho 576, 33 P.2d 743.) ... The ... state may ... ...
  • Geo. B. Wallace, Inc. v. Pfost
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • January 18, 1937
    ...not judicial, and judicial interference is permissible only in case there exists no reasonable ground for classification. ( Curtis v. Post, 53 Idaho 1, 21 P.2d 73; 42 C. 666, sec. 81; Achenbach v. Kincaid, 25 Idaho 768, 140 P. 529; In re Kessler, 26 Idaho 764, 146 P. 113, Ann. Cas. 1917A, 2......
  • Garrett Transfer & Storage Company v. Pfost, 6031
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • November 3, 1933
    ...taxation in almost every field if carried to its ultimate conclusion; the question is urged here for the first time and hence under Curtis v. Pfost, supra, not be considered. Contrary to appellant's argument that the one per cent gross earnings tax is unfair and discriminatory, exemptions a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT