In re Opinion of the Justices
| Decision Date | 17 April 1925 |
| Parties | In re OPINION OF THE JUSTICES. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERELicenses k7(1)-Law prohibiting person from operating motor vehicle on highway until he has satisfied outstanding judgment founded on previous operation is within legislative power.
It is within legislative power to enact that no person shall have license to operate a motor vehicle on public ways until he has satisfied an outstanding judgment against him founded on previous operation of motor vehicle.
The following order was passed by the House of Representatives on March 12, 1925, and by the Senate in concurrence on March 16, 1925, and was transmitted to the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court on March 20, 1925:
Whereas, there is pending before the general court a bill designed to secure financial redress in cases of personal injuries or death resulting from the operation of motor vehicles, such bill being printed in Appendix X in current Senate Document 285 and being entitled ‘An act to protect the public against certain financially irresponsible operators of motor vehicles,’ a copy of which is herewith submitted; and
Whereas, doubt exists as to the constitutionality of said bill, if enacted into law; therefore be it
Ordered, that the opinions of the honorable the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court be required by the General Court on the following important questions of law:
1. May the General Court constitutionally enact legislation depriving a person of a license to operate motor vehicles until he has satisfied a prior judgment against him in an action for damages or death resulting from the operation by him or any other person of a motor vehicle?
2. Would the bill hereinbefore mentioned, if enacted into law, be constitutional?
To the Honorable the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts:
The Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court respectfully submit this answer to the question propounded in the order described as House No. 1193 and received on March 20, 1925, copy whereof is hereto annexed.
The substance of this question is whether the General Court may constitutionally enact legislation to deprive a judgment debtor of license to operate motor vehicles until any judgment against him in a cause of action for death of damages caused by the operation of a motor vehicle has been satisfied, ‘judgment debtor’ being defined to mean the agent, minor child or ward in a case where the judgment is entered against a principal, parent, or guardian because of the operation of a motor vehicle by such agent, child or ward.
The manifest purpose of the proposed act, in the light of the report of the joint special committee of which it forms a part, is to protect the public against injuries upon public highways. The power of the commonwealth over public ways is very broad. We think that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reitz v. Mealey, 28886.
...elsewhere, upholding similar statutes. Watson v. Division of Motor Vehicles of California, 212 Cal. 279, 298 P. 481; Opinion of the Justices, 251 Mass. 617, 147 N.E. 680; Garford Trucking, Inc., v. Hoffman, 114 N.J.L. 522, 177 A. 882; Sheehan v. Division of Motor Vehicles, 140 Cal.App. 200,......
-
W.A.&H.A. Root v. MacDonald
...53 N. E. 998. Indeed, imprisonment for debt is not a criminal proceeding. See Commonwealth v. Badlam, 9 Pick. 362;Opinion of Justices, 251 Mass. 617, 619, 147 N. E. 680. In Frankel v. Frankel, 173 Mass. 214, 53 N. E. 398,73 Am. St. Rep. 266. It was held that imprisonment of a husband for co......
-
State v. Kouni, 6434
...v. William Laube & Co., 104 Conn. 487, 133 A. 584.) BUDGE, J. Holden, C. J., and Ailshie, J., concur. GIVENS, J., Morgan, J., Dissenting. OPINION BUDGE, On February 16, 1936, appellant and one Francis Blake were involved in a collision resulting in the unfortunate death of one Bernice Thoma......
-
Nulter v. State Rd. Comm'n Of West Va.
...procure the same ends. In regard to a similar statute (proposed), the Justices of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts (In re Opinion of Justices), 251 Mass. 617, 147 N.E. 680, advised the Legislature as follows: "The manifest purpose of the proposed act, * * * is to protect the public agains......