Mid-South Chemical Corp. v. Carpentier
| Decision Date | 18 September 1958 |
| Docket Number | MID-SOUTH,No. 34820,34820 |
| Citation | 14 Ill.2d 514,153 N.E.2d 72 |
| Parties | CHEMICAL CORPORATION, Appellee, v. Charles F. CARPENTIER, Secretary of State, et al., Appellants. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Latham Castle, Atty. Gen. (Richard W. Husted, Springfield, of counsel), for appellants.
Giffin, Winning, Lindner & Newkirk, Springfield (Montgomery S. Winning, Springfield, of counsel), for appellees.
This appeal and cross appeal, involving interests of the State pose the question of whether certain vehicles owned by plaintiff, the Mid-South Chemical Corporation, are exempt from the registration and licensing provisions of section 9 of the Motor Vehicle Act. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1955, chap. 95 1/2, par. 9.) The section in question creates a so-called agricultural exemption in the following terms: 'Provided, that none of the provisions of this Act requiring or prescribing registration shall be construed to include farm tractors, traction engines, threshing machines, clover hullers, ensilage cutters, corn shredders, corn shellers, corn grinders, hay presses, portable saw mills, binders, combines, farm machinery and implements, farm wagons, or like vehicles, trailers or semi-trailers used in connection therewith, which are used primarily in the agricultural pursuits of the owner thereof or in connection with the agricultural pursuits of others, or vehicles used exclusively for moving water well drilling outfits but nothing in this proviso shall exclude from registration truck tractors, trucks, trailers, or semi-trailers engaged in transporting agricultural products.'
Operating from 61 distributing plants located throughout the State, plaintiff is engaged in the business of selling a chemical fertilizer (anhydrous ammonia) to farmers all sales being F.O.B. at the plant site. At each of the plants plaintiff keeps a number of vehicles described in the decree below as being farm wagons or trailers 'of the four-wheel rubber-tired variety, from which the wagon beds were removed or which were purchased without wagon beds and upon which pressure tanks designed to carry compressed gas (primarily of five hundred or one thousand gallon water capacity) have been mounted.' These tank vehicles are used exclusively for the purpose of hauling plaintiff's product from the distributing plant to the farm there being neither allegation nor proof that they are employed in applying the fertilizer to the soil. At each of the plants specific wagons are allocated for specific use as follows: First plaintiff's distributors use certain of the wagons to make deliveries to the farms of their farmer customers; second, certain of the wagons are used by farmer customers who haul fertilizer to the farm of a neighbor for the latter's use; and, third, farmer customers use certain of the wagons to haul fertilizer to their own farms for their own use. Plaintiff makes no charge for the use of its wagons and charges the same unit price for its fertilizer whether the farmer uses his own or a company wagon for hauling. Whether the same is true when plaintiff's distributors make delivery to the farm is unanswered in the record.
When defendants, the Secretary of State and Director of the Department of Public Safety took the position that such truckwagon trailers were subject to the registration, license fee and flat weight tax provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act (see Ill.Rev.Stat.1955 chap. 95 1/2, par. 9), and sought to enforce such provisions, plaintiff instituted the present action for permanent injunctive relief in the circuit court of Sangamon County, alleging exemption on the ground that all the wagons or trailers involved are within the meaning of the exemption proviso, 'farm wagons, or like vehicles, * * * which are used primarily * * * in connection with the agricultural pursuits of others.' Upon motion for summary judgment by defendant the chancellor found that the wagons used for the first two purposes, above described, did not come within the agricultural exemption, but held that those used by the farmer-customer to haul fertilizer for himself were exempt and granted the injunctive relief prayed. Defendants have appealed and plaintiff has cross-appealed from the aspects of the decree unfavorable to each.
The question of whether any or all of the plaintiff's tank vehicles fall within the agricultural exemption of the Motor Vehicle Act is one of first impression, the answer to which must be found in the statute itself. In such a case, it is the function of the courts to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the legislature, arriving at such intention not only from the language employed in the legislation, but also from the reason and necessity for the law, the evils to be remedied, and the objects and purposes...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Price v. Philip Morris, Inc.
...being designed to qualify or limit what is declared in the body of an act, should be strictly construed. Mid-South Chemical Corp. v. Carpentier, 14 Ill.2d 514, 519, 153 N.E.2d 72 (1958) (and cases cited therein); see People v. Chas. Levy Circulating Co., 17 Ill.2d 168, 171, 161 N.E.2d 112 (......
-
Perlman v. First Nat. Bank of Chicago
...is clear. Extrinsic aids in construction of statutes may be considered only when the statute is ambiguous. (Mid-South Chemical Corp. v. Carpentier, 14 Ill.2d 514, 518, 153 N.E.2d 72.) Thus, if the trial judge determines that the meaning of sections 9 and 10 of the Interest Act is clear, the......
-
People v. Richardson
...74 Ill.2d 18, 455 N.E.2d 48; People ex rel. Cason v. Ring (1968), 41 Ill.2d 305, 310, 242 N.E.2d 267; Mid-South Chemical Corp. v. Carpentier (1958), 14 Ill.2d 514, 517, 153 N.E.2d 72; People ex rel. Roan v. Wilson (1950), 405 Ill. 122, 127-28, 90 N.E.2d 224.) The purpose of the statute is i......
-
People v. Alejos
...and necessity for the law, the evils to be remedied, and the objects and purposes to be obtained" (Mid-South Chemical Corp. v. Carpentier (1958), 14 Ill.2d 514, 517, 153 N.E.2d 72; see People ex rel. Cason v. Ring (1968), 41 Ill.2d 305, 309-10, 242 N.E.2d 267; People ex rel. Roan v. Wilson ......