State v. Diamond Tank Transport, Inc., 27774.
| Decision Date | 16 December 1939 |
| Docket Number | 27774. |
| Citation | 2 Wn.2d 13,97 P.2d 145 |
| Parties | STATE v. DIAMOND TANK TRANSPORT, Inc. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 1.
Proceeding by the State of Washington against the Diamond Tank Transport, Incorporated, for operating a garbage truck as a contract carrier without first having obtained a permit from the State Department of Public Service. From a judgment of dismissal, the State appeals.
Judgment reversed, and cause remanded with a direction.
Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Donald A. McDonald, judge.
B. Gray Warner and Laurance A. Peters, both of Seattle, for appellant.
Preston Thorgrimson & Turner, of Seattle, for respondent.
The Diamond Tank Transport, Inc., a corporation, was charged in the justice court with operating a garbage truck as a contract carrier in the city of Seattle, without first having obtained a permit so to do from the state department of public service. The case was tried to the court without a jury, and resulted in a judgment of guilty and the imposition of a fine. From this judgment and sentence, the tank company appealed to the superior court. The case was there also tried to the court without a jury, and resulted in a judgment reversing the judgment of the justice court and dismissing the action. From this judgment, the state appeals.
May 27 1938, the city of Seattle entered into a contract with the respondent to the effect that it was to collect and dispose of all garbage in the city in accordance with the plans and specifications therefor which had been prepared by the city and which were made a part of the contract. The respondent entered upon the performance of the contract, and, in its performance, used a large number of trucks.
The question is whether the resopondent is a contract carrier, as that term is defined in chapter 166, page 623, Laws of 1937. Section 1 of that act, among other things, provides that the business of operating as a motor carrier of freight for compensation along the highways of this state 'is declared to be a business affected with a public interest.' The constitutionality of the provision was held to be sustained in Prater v. Department of Public Works, 187 Wash. 335, 60 P.2d 238. Section 2 provides that:
* * *
* * *
'(c) The term 'motor vehicle' means any truck, trailer, semi-trailer, tractor or any self-propelled or motor driven vehicle used upon any public highway of this state for the purpose of transporting property, but not including baggage, mail and express transported on the vehicles of auto transportation companies carrying passengers.
'(d) The term 'public highway' means every street, road or highway in this state.
* * *
* * *
'(f) The term 'contract carrier' shall include all motor vehicle operators not included under the terms 'common carrier' and 'private carrier' as herein defined in paragraph (e) and paragraph (g), and further shall include any person who under special and individual contracts or agreements transports property by motor vehicle for compensation.'
From these provisions, it appears that the respondent is a 'person,' within the definition of that term, and that it is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
FAIRCHILD v. UNITED Serv. Corp.
...B. R. Co., (Del.) 4 Har. 448;Ace-High Dresses v. J. C. Trucking Co., 122 Conn. 578, 191 A. 536, 112 A.L.R. 86. In State v. Diamond Tank Transport Co., 2 Wash.2d 13, 97 P.2d 145, a Washington statute similar to ours was construed and the Washington court held that one engaged in collecting g......
-
Fairchild v. United Service Corporation
...Ace-High Dresses v. J. C. Trucking Co., 122 Conn. 578, 191 A. 536, 112 A.L.R. 86. In State v. Diamond Tank Transport Co., 2 Wash.2d 13, 97 P.2d 145, a Washington statute similar to ours was construed and the Washington court held that one engaged in collecting garbage in the city was a cont......
-
Visco v. State ex rel. Pickrell
...the conclusion that trash is not 'other property' as that phrase is used in the Ariz.Const. Art. 15, Sec. 10. State v. Diamond Trank Transport, 2 Wash.2d 13, 97 P.2d 145 was a criminal action in which the defendant was charged with 'operating a garbage truck as a contract carrier in the cit......
-
National Serv-All, Inc. v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue
...of Texas (1994), Tex.Civ.App., 880 S.W.2d 835; Browning-Ferris, Inc., 225 Va. 157, 300 S.E.2d 603; State v. Diamond Tank Transport, Inc. (1939), 2 Wash.2d 13, 97 P.2d 145 (all holding that garbage is property); contra, Visco, 95 Ariz. 154, 388 P.2d 155; Fairchild, 52 N.M. 289, 197 P.2d 875;......