Portland Van & Storage Co. v. Hoss
Decision Date | 08 March 1932 |
Parties | PORTLAND VAN & STORAGE CO. et al. v. HOSS, Secretary of State, et al. |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Department 1.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Marion County; Gale S. Hill, Judge.
Suit by the Portland Van & Storage Company and others against Hal E Hoss, Secretary of State, and John H. Carson, District Attorney. From a decree dismissing the complaint seeking an injunction, plaintiffs appeal.
Affirmed.
Robert F. Maguire, of Portland, for appellants.
W. S Levens, Asst. Atty. Gen. (I. H. Van Winkle, Atty. Gen., and Miles H. McKey, Asst. Atty. Gen., on the brief) for respondents.
The purpose of this suit is to restrain the defendants from applying to the plaintiffs 1929 Session Laws, chapter 394 page 503 (sections 55-1301-55-1340, Oregon Code 1930), on the ground principally that when the provisions of that act are applied to the plaintiffs they are deprived of rights protected by the federal and state Constitutions.
The plaintiffs, fifty in number, describe themselves thus:
Continuing, the complaint alleges: "That there are large numbers of persons, firms, and corporations residents of and doing business in the State of Oregon, operating large numbers of motor vehicles of the same kind, class, condition, and equipment, and of the same respective weights as those operated by these plaintiffs, and engaged in the moving and the carriage of property over the roads, streets, and highways of the State of Oregon, and traveling at the same and greater rates of speed, and being operated the same and a greater number of miles per year upon and over the streets, roads and highways of the State of Oregon, and causing the same and greater damage and wear thereto and thereof, and requiring the same or greater regulation and supervision which, because the owners thereof do not make or receive specific charges or compensation for such moving or carriage, or because they are engaged in the moving and carriage of their own goods and merchandise, or in the moving, carriage, and delivering of goods, wares and merchandise and other property sold to their customers, are not called upon by the said defendant Hal E. Hoss to pay said additional annual license tax fees, and who are thereby granted privileges and immunities from said tax, and the privilege of the use of the roads and highways upon other and different terms than these plaintiffs, who are citizens, residents, and inhabitants of the State of Oregon."
1929 Session Laws, chapter 394, page 503, subjects to the provisions and requirements of that act those carriers by motor vehicles which are expressly defined by the act itself. Of the several classifications of the act, the plaintiffs have called to our attention the two following, both being codified in section 55-1301, Oregon Code 1930:
The other carriers subject to the act are "motor carriers" which, as defined by the act, include all operators engaged "in the business of motor transportation of and for the general public and not operating exclusively within the limits of an incorporated city."
Section 5 of the act (codified as section 55-1305, Oregon Code 1930) renders it unlawful for any motor carrier, contract hauler, or commercial carrier to operate vehicles in motor transportation without obtaining from the Secretary of State a license. Section 15 of the act (being section 55-1315, Oregon Code 1930) provides: "Every motor carrier, contract hauler and commercial carrier subject to this act shall pay to the state of Oregon an annual charge for the maintenance, repair and reconstruction of public highways in this state and for the purpose of defraying the expenses of administration of this act and the expenses of regulation of the business of motor transportation in this state and as compensation for the use of said highways." The fee charged is dependent upon the amount of the license tax fee exacted upon the registration of the carrier's vehicles.
To the complaint which alleged the foregoing facts, and which also pointed out the provisions of the federal and the state Constitutions which the plaintiffs claim are infringed by the above-mentioned statute, the circuit court sustained the defendants' demurrer. From the resulting...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Peters v. McKay
...policy of the legislature: Othus v. Kozer, 119 Or. 101, 248 P. 146; State v. Hay, 132 Or. 223, 283 P. 753; Portland Van & Storage Co. v. Hoss, 139 Or. 434, 9 P.2d 122, 81 A.L.R. 1136. 'It is a familiar rule that a thing may be within the letter of the statute and yet not within the statute,......
-
Public Service Commission of Wyoming v. Grimshaw, 1941
... ... Collins v. Comm., 7 P.2d ... 123; Kelly v. Finney, 194 N.E. 157; Portland ... Company v. Hess, 9 P.2d 122; Anderson v ... Thomas, 26 P.2d 60; Stephenson v. Binford, ... ...
-
Idaho Gold Dredging Company v. Balderston
... ... 536, 159 So. 792, 99 A. L. R. 123; Pacific Milling & E ... Co. v. Portland, 65 Ore. 349, 133 P. 72, 46 L. R. A., N ... S., 363; State v. Pioneer Nurseries, supra ; ... excise taxes and ad valorem taxes without being ... duplication. ( Portland Van & Storage Co. v. Hoss, ... 139 Ore. 434, 9 P.2d 122, 81 A. L. R. 1136.) Oklahoma has ... further held no ... ...
-
Johnson v. Star Machinery Co.
...policy of the legislature: Othus v. Kozer, 119 Or. 101, 248 P. 146; State v. Hay, 132 Or. 223, 283 P. 753; Portland Van & Storage Co. v. Hoss, 139 Or. 434, 9 P.2d 122, 81 A.L.R. 1136 * * *.' (Emphasis Fox has been subsequently cited with approval, E.g., Peters et al. v. McKay et al., 195 Or......