Frank Kane v. State of New Jersey, No. 51
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | Brandeis |
| Citation | 242 U.S. 160,61 L.Ed. 222,37 S.Ct. 30 |
| Parties | FRANK J. KANE, Plff. in Err., v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY |
| Docket Number | No. 51 |
| Decision Date | 04 December 1916 |
v.
STATE OF NEW JERSEY.
Page 161
Messrs. John W. Griggs and Charles Thaddeus Terry for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 161-163 intentionally omitted]
Page 164
Messrs. Herbert Boggs and John W. Wescott, Attorney General of New Jersey, for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice Brandeis delivered the opinion of the court:
The New Jersey Automobile Law of 1908 (P. L. 1908, p. 613) provides in substance that no person, whether a resident or nonresident of the state, shall drive an automobile upon a public highway unless he shall have been licensed so to do and the automobile shall have been registered under the statute; and also that a nonresident owner shall appoint the secretary of state his attorney upon whom process may be served 'in any action or legal proceeding caused by the operation of his registered motor vehicle within this state against such owner.' The statute fixes the driver's license fee for cars of less than thirty horse power at $2, and more than thirty horse power at $4. It fixes the registration fee at $3 for cars of not more than ten horse power; $5 for those from eleven to twenty-nine horse power; and $10 for those of thirty or greater horse power. Both license fees and registration fees, whensoever issued, expire at the close of the calendar year. The moneys received from license and registration fees in excess of the amount required for the maintenance of the motor vehicle department are to be applied to the maintenance of the improved highways. Penalties are prescribed for using the public highways
Page 165
without complying with the requirements of the act. The material portions of the statute are copied in the margin.1
Kane, a resident of New York, was arrested while driving his automobile on the public highways of New Jersey,
Page 166
and tried in the recorder's court. The following facts were stipulated: Kane had been duly licensed as a driver under the laws of both New York and New Jersey. He had registered his car in New York, but not in New Jersey. He had not filed with the secretary of state of New Jersey the prescribed instrument appointing that official his attorney upon whom process might be served. When arrested he was on his way from New York to Pennsylvania. The aggregate receipts from license and registration fees for the year exceeded the amount required to defray the expenses of the motor vehicle department, so that a large sum became available for maintenance of the improved roads of the state. Kane contended that the statute was invalid as to him, a nonresident, because it violated the Constitution and laws of the United States regulating interstate commerce, and also because it violated
Page 167
the 14th Amendment. These contentions were overruled, and he was fined $5. The conviction was duly reviewed both in the supreme court and by the court of errors and appeals. The contentions were repeated in both of those courts; and both courts affirmed the conviction. Kane v. State, 81 N. J. L. 594, L.R.A. 1917B, 553, 80 Atl. 453, Ann. Cas. 1912D, 237. The case was brought here by writ of error.
The power of a state to regulate the use of motor vehicles on its highways has been recently considered by this court and broadly sustained. It extends to nonresidents as well as to residents. It includes the right to exact reasonable compensation for special facilities afforded as well as reasonable provisions to insure safety. And it is properly exercised in imposing a license fee graduated according to the horse power of the engine. Hendrick v. Maryland, 235 U. S. 610, 59 L. ed. 385, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 140. Several reasons are urged why that case should not be deemed controlling:
1. The Maryland law did not require the nonresident to appoint an agent within the state upon whom process may be served. But it was recognized in discussing it, that 'the movement of motor vehicles over the highways is attended by constant and serious dangers to the public.' (p. 622.) We know that ability...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cobb v. Department of Public Works, 481.
...injuries, resulting from their operation. Packard v. Banton, 264 U. S. 140, 44 S. Ct. 257, 68 L. Ed. 596. Compare Kane v. New Jersey, 242 U. S. 160, 167, 37 S. Ct. 30, 61 L. Ed. 222; Hess v. Pawloski, 274 U. S. 352, 47 S. Ct. 632, 71 L. Ed. 1091; Clark v. Poor, 274 U. S. 554, 557, 47 S. Ct.......
-
State v. Caplan
...not in use, just beyond the boundary line of the state." State v. Oligney, 162 Minn. 302, 305. 202 N. W. 893, 895; Kane v. New Jersey, 242 U. S. 160, 37 S. Ct. 30, 61 L. Ed. 222, Nor in the reciprocity provision, which merely gives credit to those who give credit to us, and which promotes t......
-
State ex rel. Rice v. Evans-Terry Co, 31585
...374, 76 L.Ed. 1183; Hicklen v. Coney, 290 U.S. 169, 78 L.Ed. 247; Hendricks v. Maryland, 253 U.S. 610, 59 L.Ed. 385; Kane v. New Jersey, 242 U.S. 160, 61 L.Ed. 222; Carley & Hamilton, and Cottingham v. Snook, 281 U.S. 66, 74 L.Ed. 704. Chapter 126 of the General Laws of Mississippi 1934 is ......
-
Aybar v. Aybar, 54
...N.Y.3d 306 circumstances of their commission, may be deemed sufficient to render the corporation liable to suit. Cf. Kane v. New Jersey , 242 U.S. 160 [37 S.Ct. 30] ; Hess v. Pawloski, supra. True, some of the decisions holding the corporation amenable to suit have been supported by resort ......
-
Hudson v. Stuart, 30434
...Sam Kozer, Secretary of State, 104 Oregon, 600, 209 P. 95; M'Culloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 421, 4 L.Ed. 579, 605; Kane v. New Jersey, 242 U.S. 160, 61 L.Ed. 222, 37 S.Ct. 30; 81 N. J. L. 594; L.R.A. 1917, 553, 80 A. 453, Ann. Cas. 1912D, 237; Northern Kentucky Transp. Co. v. Bellvue, 2......
-
Paul Gray, Inc. v. Ingels, Eq. 1203-C.
...of a reasonable fee for the use of the highways. Hendrick v. Maryland, 235 U.S. 610, 35 S. Ct. 140, 59 L.Ed. 385; Kane v. New Jersey, 242 U.S. 160, 37 S.Ct. 30, 61 L.Ed. 222; Interstate Busses Corp. v. Blodgett, 276 U.S. 245, 48 S.Ct. 230, 72 L.Ed. 551; Morf v. Bingaman 298 U.S. 407, 56 S.C......
-
Airport Authority District v. Delta Airlines, Inc Northeast Airlines, Inc v. New Hampshire Aeronautics Commission 8212 99, 70 8212 212, EVANSVILLE-VANDERBURGH
...numerous tolls based on a variety of measures of actual use, including: horsepower, Hendrick v. Maryland, supra; Kane v. New Jersey, 242 U.S. 160, 37 S.Ct. 30, 61 L.Ed. 222 (1916); number and capacity of vehicles, Clark v. Poor, 274 U.S. 554, 47 S.Ct. 702, 71 L.Ed. 1199 (1927); mileage with......
-
Nat'l Ass'n for the Advancement of Multijurisdictional Practice v. Castille, Civil Action No. 13–7382.
...States who do not receive the benefits conferred by the agreement may complain.” 424 U.S. at 378, 96 S.Ct. 923 (citing Kane v. New Jersey, 242 U.S. 160, 167–68, 37 S.Ct. 30, 61 L.Ed. 222 (1916) and Bode v. Barrett, 344 U.S. 583, 73 S.Ct. 468, 97 L.Ed. 567 (1953) ).Therefore I find that heig......