State v. Peterson

Decision Date02 May 1924
Docket NumberNo. 23928.,23928.
Citation159 Minn. 269,198 N.W. 1011
CourtMinnesota Supreme Court
PartiesSTATE v. PETERSON.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from District Court, Kittson County; Andrew Grindeland, Judge.

Proceeding by the State against Ed. Peterson to enforce payment of taxes. From an order denying a motion for new trial, and from the judgment dismissing the proceeding, the plaintiff appeals. Appeals consolidated, judgment and order reversed, and cause remanded.

Syllabus by the Court

Section 16, c. 461, Laws 1921, providing for the taxation of motor vehicles, once used on the public streets and highways, on a more onerous basis than other personal property, is not in contravention of section 3, art. 16, of the Constitution. (See Laws 1919, c. 531.)

Respondent's automobile was taxable in the year 1922 under the provisions of chapter 461, although it was not used on the public highways in that year. It became subject to future taxation under the act when it was registered and operated on the public highways in the year 1921.

The tax imposed by the act is not a privilege tax, but a tax on property. In imposing it, the Legislature had power to classify motor vehicles for the purpose of their future taxation upon the basis of prior registration and use of the public highways.

The contemporaneous interpretation of a constitutional provision by the first Legislature assembled after its adoption is entitled to great weight. C. L. Hilton, Atty. Gen., Jas. E. Markham, Deputy Atty. Gen., and A. D. Bornemann, Co. Atty., of Hallock, for appellant.

I. Steenson, of Drayton, N. D., for respondent.

LEES, C.

This is an appeal from an order denying a motion for a new trial and also from the judgment dismissing a proceeding under chapter 461, Laws 1921, to enforce the payment of a tax on the respondent's automobile. The appeals were consolidated and heard on the same record and briefs.

The ultimate question to be determined is whether section 16 of the act contravenes section 3, art. 16, of the state Constitution (see Laws 1919, c. 530), commonly known as the Babcock Amendment, reading in part as follows:

‘The Legislature is hereby authorized to provide, by law, for the taxation of motor vehicles using the public streets and highways of this state, on a more onerous basis than other personal property.’

Pursuant to this grant of authority, the Legislature enacted chapter 461, declaring in section 16 that--

‘Every motor vehicle * * * shall be deemed to be one using the public streets and highways and hence as such subject to taxation under this act if such motor vehicle has, prior to the date set for registration thereof, used such public streets or highways, or shall actually use them, or if it shall come into the possession of an owner other than as a manufacturer, dealer, warehouseman, mortgagee or pledgee.’

Respondent was the owner of a Dodge car. It was registered under the act and used on the public highways in the year 1921. In the month of August it was so damaged that it could not be operated without out repairs. Respondent did not have them made, choosing to store the car instead. He kept it in a shed on his premises during the whole of the year 1922. This circumstance is the basis for his contention that in that year the car was taxable only as other personal property is taxed.

Taxation of a certain class of property is one of the subjects covered by the Babcock Amendment. The tax authorized is in lieu of all other taxes and is based on the value of the property as ascertained by the secretary of state, by whom the tax is computed. Fairley v. City of Duluth, 150 Minn. 374, 185 N. W. 390;Dohs v. Holm, 152 Minn. 529, 189 N. W. 418.

For the purpose of taxation, the Legislature has created two classes of motor vehicles, placing those using the public highways in the first class, and all others in the second class. Those in the first class are taxed on the basis fixed by section 3 of the act; those in the second on the same basis as personal property in general. Section 20 of the act provides for the collection of the tax by a proceeding in the district court upon notice to the taxpayer, who may answer and defend.

Neither the Constitution nor the act contemplates a privilege tax. The right to use the public highways is not taxed. The owner's property right in a motor vehicle is taxed. If respondent's contention is sustained, motor vehicles are shifted from one class to the other according to the use to which they are put. If driven on the public highways, they are taxable under the 1921 act; if not, they are taxable under chapter 11 G. S. 1913.

Respondent's position logically leads to the conclusion that under section 3 of the act the owner of a car, who stores it from January 1st to August 1st and drives it between August 1st and December 31st, should not be required to pay more than one-half of the tax imposed by the act, because the car first became subject to taxation thereunder on August 1st. But the amendment does not make the annual use of the public highways the criterion for determining whether a motor vehicle is within the first or the second class for...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • State ex rel. Transport Mfg. & Equipment Co. v. Bates
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • November 14, 1949
    ... ... 173, p. 230; Ex parte Asotsky, 319 Mo. 810, 5 S.W.2d 22; ... State ex rel. McClung v. Becker, 288 Mo. 607, 233 ... S.W. 54; Brashear Freight Lines v. Public Service ... Comm., 23 F.Supp. 865; Stebbins v. Riley, 268 ... U.S. 137, 69 L.Ed. 884, 45 S.Ct. 424; State v ... Peterson, 159 Minn. 269, 198 N.W. 1011, 114 A.L.R. 855; ... Sec. 5728, R.S. 1939; Cape Girardeau v. Groves Motor ... Co., 346 Mo. 762, 142 S.W.2d 1040. (5) If the exemption ... complained of renders the act invalid the exemption should be ... considered void and the act should remain in effect ... ...
  • State ex rel. Transport Mfg. Co. v. Bates, 41456.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • November 14, 1949
    ... ... (2d) 632; 51 Am. Jur., sec. 173, p. 230; Ex parte Asotsky, 319 Mo. 810, 5 S.W. (2d) 22; State ex rel. McClung v. Becker, 288 Mo. 607, 233 S.W. 54; Brashear Freight Lines v. Public Service Comm., 23 Fed. Supp. 865; Stebbins v. Riley, 268 U.S. 137, 69 L. Ed. 884, 45 S. Ct. 424; State v. Peterson, 159 Minn. 269, 198 N.W. 1011, 114 A.L.R. 855; Sec. 5728, R.S. 1939; Cape Girardeau v. Groves Motor Co., 346 Mo. 762, 142 S.W. (2d) 1040. (5) If the exemption complained of renders the act invalid the exemption should be considered void and the act should remain in effect. Fairley v. Duluth, 150 ... ...
  • Hassler v. Engberg
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • April 6, 1951
    ... ... relief by a decree or judgment of a specific character as distinguished from an opinion advising what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts. Held that a justiciable controversy exists under the facts and circumstances here ...         2. In construing the ... The question came before this court in State v. Peterson, 159 Minn. 269, 198 N.W. 1011, as to whether L.1921, c. 461, § 16, contravened Minn. Const. art. 16, § 3, commonly known as the Babcock amendment, ... ...
  • State v. Vasko, A15-1172
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • January 18, 2017
    ... ... See LPMC 5.5.1.2, 5.5.1.3.2. The district court found that the car "appeared to be inoperable," but the State produced little evidence that the car could not be "driven or propelled under its own power in its existing condition." LPMC 5.5.1.3.2.5 See also State v. Peterson, 159 Minn. 269, 27273, 198 N.W. 1011, 1012 (1924) (noting that the Legislature's decision to "adopt[ ] past or prospective use of the public highways" as a basis for taxation had the "merit of certainty" in enforcement).6 Vasko argues that state law preempts the Lester Prairie blight ordinance and ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT