Hinesley, In re
Decision Date | 16 May 1967 |
Docket Number | No. 10334,10334 |
Parties | In the Matter of the Revocation of the Motor Vehicle Used Car Dealers License of Gerald D. HINESLEY and L. W. Sanders, d/b/a Sanders-Hinesley Motor Sales. |
Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
Frank L. Farrar, Atty. Gen., F. A. Winans, Asst. Atty. Gen., Pierre, for appellant.
D. O. Dillavou, Deadwood, for respondent.
Woods, Fuller, Shultz & Smith, and J. B. Shultz and Timothy J. Nimick, Sioux Falls, for South Dakota Automobile Dealers Association, amicus curiae.
The Sanders-Hinesley Motor Sales of Sturgis was licensed to sell used motor vehicles. It was not licensed to sell new cars and was not a franchised new car dealer. On June 21, 1965 the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles suspended his dealer's license for a period of six months for selling new Ford automobiles under its used motor vehicle dealer's license. The dealer appealed to Circuit Court which reversed the order of the Commissioner and reinstated its license. In doing so the trial court held SDC 1960 Supp. 44.0211(2) unconstitutional. That question is now here on appeal by the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles. The disputed portion of SDC 1960 Supp. 44.0211(2) reads:
'That if the applicant desires to sell, solicit, or advertise the sale of new and unused motor vehicles, he must have a bona fide contract or franchise in effect with the manufacturer or distributor of the motor vehicle, or motor vehicles, he proposes to deal in.'
The trial court largely relied on the reasoning of Joyner v. Centre Motor Co., 192 Va. 627, 66 S.E.2d 469 and quoted therefrom as follows:
'The vice in and resultant unconstitutionality of this legislation is that it presupposes that unenfranchised dealers constitute a class who alone are capable of fraudulent and sharp practice, and that dealers who hold franchises are immune from and incapable of committing the wrongs and dishonest acts sought to be guarded against.
Similar regulatory provisions in Nebraska and Ohio were struck down in Nelsen v. Tilley, 137 Neb. 327, 289 N.W. 388, 126 A.L.R. 729, and by the Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals in Ohio Motor Vehicle Dealers & Salesmen's Licensing Board v. Memphis Auto Sales, 103 Ohio 347, 142 N.E.2d 268. It should be noted, however, that each of these courts specifically recognize the authority of the legislature to enact regulatory measures governing the sale of new and used automobiles. Only the means of regulation was considered to be constitutionally offensive. Nelsen v. Tilley, supra, was decided in 1939. The Nebraska Court conditioned its opinion with the following pertinent observation:
Since 1939 the automobile industry has multiplied in size and complexity. The automobile has become a social and economic necessity furnishing means of transportation for nearly everyone in every walk of life. It has displaced most other means of local and long distance carriage. Multicar families with multi-car garages are common. The pickup has replaced the horse on farms and ranches. Motorized vehicles are now used by hunters and fishermen to reach remote areas, to take skiers up mountain slopes, and to carry weary golfers over the tortious torrain of their courses. A nationwide network of super highways has been constructed. Motels are replacing hotels. Highway and motor vehicle departments are fast becoming the largest units of state and local governments. Governmental regulation of every form has followed in the wake of such growth. The so-called automobile dealer franchise acts enacted by Congress and several states are perhaps the most far reaching. The federao act seeks to equalize the economic relationship between motor vehicle manufacturers and dealers by giving dealers a right of action for damages when a manufacturer has not used good faith in performing its obligations under a dealer franchise or in terminating it. State statutes generally require automobile manufacturers to obtain a license. Such license may be denied, suspended, or revoked by the state on numerous grounds including 'any act unfair to a dealer'. These acts have been held constitutional. See Anno. 7 A.L.R.3d 1173.
When considering the constitutionality of any statute there is a presumption of validity and no statute should be held unconstitutional 'unless its infringement of constitutional restrictions is so plain and palpable to admit of no reasonable doubt', State v. Black Hills Transportation, 71 S.D. 28, 20 N.W.2d 683. Furthermore, a court does not sit as a super-legislature to determine the wisdom of the legislation. State v. Nuss, 79 S.D. 522, 114 N.W.2d 633. The court went on to point out in the Nuss case that Beyond question therefore our legislature has authority under the police power to regulate the sale of motor vehicles for the protection and general welfare of the public. See Anno. in 57 A.L.R.2d on subject of 'Regulation or licensing of business of selling motor vehicles', p. 1265.
In adopting regulatory measures affecting the sale of motor vehicles 'the legislature may properly differentiate between dealers in new vehicles and dealers in used vehicles', 7 Am.Jur.2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic, § 29, p. 619, also see Ring v. Mayor and Council of Borough of N. Arlington, 136 N.J.L. 494, 56 A.2d 744, aff. 1 N.J. 24, 61 A.2d 508, and 420 Broad Ave. Corp. v. Borough of Palisades Park, 137 N.J.L. 527, 61 A.2d 23. In considering whether an Oklahoma law regulating the practice of optometry violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by subjecting opticians to the regulatory system and exempting sellers of ready-to-wear glasses the U.S. Supreme Court said Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, 348 U.S. 483, 75 S.Ct. 461, 99 L.Ed. 563.
The most recent case on the subject, Louisiana Motor Vehicle Com'n v. Wheeling French, 235 La. 332, 103 So.2d 464, upholds the constitutionality of a statute limiting the sale of new and used motor vehicles to dealers holding a bona fide contract or franchise with a manufacturer or distributor of new and unused motor vehicles. The court observed ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Aero Motors, Inc. v. Administrator, Motor Vehicle Administration
... ... at 349, 103 So.2d at 470 ... The Supreme Court of South Dakota reached a similar result in In re Hinesley, 82 S.D. 552, 150 N.W.2d 834 (1967), when it upheld the constitutionality of the statute that provided: 'That if the applicant desires to sell, solicit, or advertise the sale of new and unused motor vehicles, he must have a bona fide contract or franchise in effect with the manufacturer or ... ...
-
Kneip v. Herseth
... ... Jones, 1924, 47 S.D. 488, 199 N.W. 472; State v. Reeves, 1921, 44 S.D. 568, 184 N.W. 993; Application of Nelson, 1968, 83 S.D. 611, 163 N.W.2d 533; In Re Hinesley, 1967, 82 S.D. 552, 150 N.W.2d 834, and will, if possible, construe a statute as to render it valid. Spangler v. City of Mitchell, 1915, 35 S.D. 335, 152 N.W. 339; Bekker v. White River Valley Ry. Co., 1911, [87 S.D. 657] 28 S.D. 84, 132 N.W. 797; Kramar v. Bon Homme County, 1968, 83 S.D. 112, 155 ... ...
-
McDonald v. School Bd. of Yankton Independent School Dist. No. 1 of Yankton, 11550
... ... Black Hills Transportation, 71 S.D. 28, 20 N.W.2d 683.' In re Hinesley, 1967, 82 S.D. 552, 150 N.W.2d 834 ... Furthermore, as it concerns the power of the legislature, this court has long recognized that: ... 'The constitution is not a grant but a limitation upon the lawmaking power of the state legislature and it may enact any law not expressly ... ...
-
Binding Declaratory Ruling of Dept. of Motor Vehicles, In re, 44104
... ... Aero Motors, Inc. v. Administrator, Motor Vehicle Administration, 274 Md. 567, 337 A.2d 685 (1975); In re Hinesley, 82 S.D. 552, 150 N.W.2d 834 (1967); Louisiana Motor Vehicle Comm'n v. Wheeling Frenchman, 235 La. 332, 103 So.2d 464 (1958) ... The court below agreed with respondent's contention that the requirement of RCW 46.70.041 denies respondent equal protection in that the statute does not ... ...