State v. King
Decision Date | 07 December 1936 |
Citation | 188 A. 775 |
Parties | STATE v. KING. |
Court | Maine Supreme Court |
[Copyrighted material omitted.]
Report from Superior Court, Aroostook County.
Sandy King was indicted for operating truck as contract carrier without permit. On report from the Superior Court.
Case remanded, respondent to stand for trial.
Argued before DUNN, C. J., and STURGIS, BARNES, THAXTER, HUDSON, and MANSER, JJ.
George B. Barnes, Co. Atty., of Houlton, for plaintiff.
John O. Rogers, of Houlton, for defendant.
On report. The respondent stands indicted by the grand jury of Aroostook county for violation of section 5, chapter 259, of the Public Laws of 1933, as amended by chapter 146 of the Public Laws of 1935; the chapter entitled, "An Act Relative to Regulation of the Use of the Highways by Motor Vehicles Transporting Property for Hire." By agreement, if this court declares that "prosecution can be maintained, the case is to be remanded for disposition in accordance with the statute."
This chapter divides such users of the highways into two classes; first, common carriers "over regular routes between points within this state" (see section 2) (in section 6 special provision is made as to interstate carriers); and, second, contract carriers, defining them to be "all persons, firms or corporations operating, or causing the operation of, motor vehicles transporting freight or merchandise for hire upon the public highways, other than common carriers over regular routes; except that the term shall not be construed to include any person, firm or corporation not regularly engaged in the transportation business but who on occasional trips transports the property of others for hire" (see section 5).
In section 5, subd. (A), it is provided:
"No contract carrier shall operate, or cause to be operated, any motor vehicle or vehicles for the transportation of property for hire on any public highway within this state without having obtained a permit from the commission."
The respondent did not have the required permit. It is admitted he is a contract carrier and that in that capacity he operated his leased truck on the public highways leading from Houlton to Patten (conveying cream from his collecting station in Houlton to the creamery in Patten). On these facts, the State contends he is guilty.
Guilt is denied by the respondent on the ground that the statute, so far as it concerns contract carriers, violates both State and Federal Constitutions in depriving him of "due process of law" and "equal protection of the laws."
As it relates to common carriers, this chapter has recently been passed upon by this court. As to them, In re John M. Stanley, Exceptant, 133 Me. 91, 174 A. 93, 95, holds it constitutional. This decision was affirmed by the United States Supreme Court, Stanley v. Public Utilities Commission, 295 U.S. 76, 55 S.Ct. 628, 79 L.Ed. 1311. Now we are to pass upon its contract carrier provisions.
As to due process and equal protection, the respondent seeks cover under article 1, § 1, of the Maine Constitution, which provides,
"All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protesting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness," and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, that no state shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
He challenges this statute as an unconstitutional deprivation of his right to conduct his business as a contract carrier. At the outset, it is to be noted that the respondent's business is not conducted only with his own property. A very big and essential part of it is in the use of the public highways, to which he has no special right, but only that of the public at large.
In holding constitutional an ordinance of the town of Eden, closing certain public streets to the use of automobiles, Justice King in State v. Mayo, 106 Me. 62, 75 A. 295, 297, 26 L.R.A.(N.S.) 502, 20 Ann.Cas. 512, said:
Also see State v. Phillips, 107 Me. 249, 78 A. 283.
In State v. Robb, Appellant, 100 Me. 180, 60 A. 874, 876, 4 Ann.Cas. 275, this court said:
"The constitutional guaranties that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, were not intended to limit the subjects upon which the police power of a state may lawfully be exerted."
Quoted therein with approval is this language from the Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 21 L.Ed. 394, viz:
"The citizen owns his property absolutely, it is true; it cannot be taken from him for any private use whatever without his consent, nor for any public use without compensation; still he owns it subject to this restriction, namely, that it must be so used as not to injure others, and that the sovereign authority may, by police regulations, so direct the use of it that it shall not prove pernicious to his neighbors or the citizens generally."
In State v. Latham, 115 Me. 176, 98 A. 578, L.R.A.1917A, 480, Chief Justice Savage stated:
."
In Maine Motor Coaches, Inc., Petitioner v. Public Utilities Commission, 125 Me. 63, 130 A. 866, 867, Chief Justice Wilson said:
"In view of the well-recognized control over highways by the Legislature and of the public moneys spent in building permanent thoroughfares throughout the state, and the possible menace to public safety, and the rapid destruction of the roadbed by the operation of heavy, high-powered motor busses over them, the authority of the Legislature to prohibit the use of the public ways for such purposes cannot be doubted."
This case is cited with approval in Justice Sutherland's opinion in Stephenson v. Binford, 287 U.S. 251, 264, 53 S.Ct. 181, 184, 77 L.Ed. 288, 87 A.L.R. 721.
In York Harbor Village Corporation v. Libby et al., 126 Me. 537, 140 A. 382, 385 ( ), Justice Deasy said:
In State of Maine v. Chandler, 131 Me. 262, 161 A. 148, 82 A.L.R. 1389, Justice Sturgis said:
"The right of a state in the exercise of its police power to prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in respect to the operation of motor vehicles on its highways has been repeatedly recognized and sustained."
In State of Maine v. Old Tavern Farm, Inc., 133 Me. 468, 180 A. 473, 475, 101 A.L. R. 810, Justice Dunn stated:
A fortiori is it true of a contract carrier, for his service is private, not public.
This also from the recent Stanley Case, supra:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Nadeau v. State
...dismissed, 414 U.S. 1035, 94 S.Ct. 532, 38 L.Ed.2d 326 (1973); von Tiling v. City of Portland, Me., 268 A.2d 888 (1970); State v. King, 135 Me. 5, 188 A. 775 (1936). Verreault v. City of Lewiston, 150 Me. 67, 104 A.2d 538 (1954), for instance, presented the not dissimilar question of the pe......
-
State v. Karmil Merchandising Corp.
...State v. Mitchell, 97 Me. 66, 53 A. 887; State v. Dodge, 117 Me. 269, 104 A. 5; In re Milo Water Co., 128 Me. 531, 149 A. 299; State v. King, 135 Me. 5, 188 A. 775; Boothby et al. v. City of Westbrook et al., 138 Me. 117, 123, 23 A.2d To avoid confusion we must at all times keep before us t......
-
National Hearing Aid Centers, Inc. v. Smith
...can reasonably be assumed, lends support to the legislative action. Union Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Emerson, supra; State v. King, 135 Me. 5, 188 A. 775 (1936). We can easily assume several reasonable goals which could motivate the legislature in enacting the challenged Act, 3 1. To dete......
-
Boothby v. City of Westbrook
...U.S. 404, 56 S.Ct. 252, 80 L.Ed. 299, 102 A. L.R. 54; Royster Guano Co. v. Virginia, 253 U.S. 412, 40 S.Ct. 560, 64 L.Ed. 989; State v. King, 135 Me. 5, 188 A. 775; In re Milo Water Co., 128 Me. 531, 149 A. 299; State v. Latham, 115 Me. 176, 178, 98 A. 578, L.R.A.1917A, 480; Dirken v. Great......