Western Exp. Co. v. Wallace
| Decision Date | 21 March 1945 |
| Docket Number | 30068. |
| Citation | 144 Ohio St. 612,60 N.E.2d 312 |
| Parties | WESTERN EXPRESS CO. v. WALLACE, Registrar of Motor Vehicles, et al. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Owners of motor vehicles operated or driven upon the public roads or highways of this state are required by the provisions of Section 6294, General Code, to file annually an application for the registration of such vehicles and pay the license tax prescribed. The only exception to such requirement is that specified in favor of nonresidents of the state by the provisions of Section 6306, General Code.
2. The owner of a motor vehicle who, being a resident of this state, operates or drives upon the highways of this state such motor vehicle bearing a number issued by another state without complying with the laws of this state relating to the identification and registration of motor vehicles, is subject to the penalty prescribed by Section 12618-3, General Code.
3. Motor vehicles which are owned by an Ohio Motor transportation corporation with an established residence in this state, kept and garaged in the state of New York, and used for both intrastate business in that state and interstate transportation between points in Ohio and New York, are subject to registration and payment of the motor vehicle license tax imposed by Section 6291, General Code.
Appeal from Court of Appeals, Cuyahoga County.
This action was instituted in the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga county by The Western Express Company against Cylon W. Wallace, Registrar of Motor Vehicles for the state of Ohio, and Franklin M. Quinn, an inspector of the Bureau of Motor Vehicles.
The parties will be referred to as they appeared in the Common Pleas Court.
The plaintiff is a corporation created and doing business under the laws of Ohio, its principal place ob business being Cleveland. The plaintiff seeks relief by way of a declaratory judgment and injunction, from the requirement which defendants have sought to enforce that its motor trucks garaged and licensed in New York and operated in Ohio in interstate commerce, be registered in this state and bear Ohio license plates. The case was heard in the Court of Common Pleas and, upon appeal, in the Court of Appeals upon the pleadings and agreed statement of facts. The facts essential here may be concisely stated as follows:
The plaintiff is engaged in the business of transporting freight for hire as a common carrier. It maintains terminals and garages for its motor vehicles in Ohio and also in New York state where it is qualified to do business as a foreign corporation. The motor vehicles involved in this case are garaged in New York and are primarily used in intrastate business in that state, but are periodically used in interstate business between points in New York and Ohio. They are registered in New York and bear New York license plates. These trucks have been stopped by Ohio inspectors and on occasion held pending the procurement of Ohio registration and licenses.
The Court of Common Pleas held that the plaintiff could lawfully operate the motor trucks in question in this state without procuring Ohio license or license plates therefor, and enjoined the defendants from compelling or attempting to compel plaintiff to procure Ohio license or license plates for such vehicles.
Upon appeal on questions of law and fact, the Court of Appeals found for the defendants, dissolved the injunction and dismissed the petition.
Following the allowance of a motion for certification, the case is in this court for review.
Baker, Hostetler & Patterson and Clayton A. Quintrell, all of Cleveland, for appellant.
Thomas J. Herbert, Atty. Gen., and W. Lee Shield, and Edward P. Gibson, both of Columbus, for appellees.
The single question presented in this case is whether the plaintiff, being a motor transportation corporation created and existing under the laws of Ohio, having its principal place of business in Ohio but also maintaining a garage and terminal in the state of New York for its motor vehicles in that state, which motor vehicles are registered under and in compliance with the law of that state but used both for intrastate business in New York and interstate transportation between points in Ohio and New York, is a resident of New York and a nonresident of Ohio within the meaning of the provisions of Section 6306, General Code, whereby motor vehicles owned by nonresidents of Ohio are exempted from the requirement of registration and payment of license tax upon motor vehicles operated on the public roads or highways in Ohio.
Section 6306, General Code, reads:
'The owner of every motor vehicle which is duly registered in any state, district, country or sovereignty other than the state of Ohio shall be exempt from the foregoing sections of this chapter and the penal statutes relating thereto, provided the owner thereof has complied with the provisions of law in regard to motor vehicles in the state of his residence and complies with such provisions while operating and driving such motor vehicle upon the public roads or highways of this state, and further provided that such provisions of law of such other state make substantially like and equal exemptions to the owners of motor vehicles registered in this state.
'Reciprocal agreements between this and any other state, district or country necessary in administering the provisions of this section shall be made as provided in Section 6306-1 of the General Code.'
The plaintiff concedes that a corporation can be domiciled only in the state wherein it has its principal place of business, but contends that a corporation may have residences, as distinguished from a domiciled, in other states where it is qualified to do business. Its claim to exemption from the requirement of registration of its motor vehicles in this state is based upon that theory.
The defendants contend that under our statutes...
To continue reading
Request your trial