Wisconsin Fertilizer Ass'n v. Karns

• Decision Date: 08 October 1971
• Citation: 190 N.W.2d 513,52 Wis.2d 309
• Parties: WISCONSIN FERTILIZER ASSN., Inc., Respondents, v. James L. KARNS, Admr., Division of Motor Vehicles, Department of Transportation, Appellant. AMERICAN OIL CO., a Maryland Corporation, Appellant, v. James L. KARNS, Motor Vehicle Commr., State of Wisconsin, Respondent. .nos. 123, 124.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Page 513

190 N.W.2d 513

52 Wis.2d 309

WISCONSIN FERTILIZER ASSN., Inc., Respondents, v. James L. KARNS, Admr., Division of Motor Vehicles, Department of Transportation, Appellant.

AMERICAN OIL CO., a Maryland Corporation, Appellant, v. James L. KARNS, Motor Vehicle Commr., State of Wisconsin, Respondent.

.nos. 123, 124.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Oct. 8, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 4, 1972.

This case involves appeals from two separate judgments of the circuit court for Dane county. Both judgments arose out of actions for declaratory judgment. A common question was presented in each case and, accordingly, the appeals were consolidated for argument.

The first case (Case No. 123 on this court's calendar), Wisconsin Fertilizer Association, Inc., et al., v. James L. Karns, Administrator, Division of Motor Vehicles, was commenced on March 28, 1967, and resulted in a judgment on January 5, 1970, declaring that bulk dry fertilizer applicators and trailer mounted liquid fertilizer applicators were 'implements of husbandry,' but that trailer mounted liquid fertilizer containers, with and without attached application equipment, were not 'implements of husbandry.'

The second case (Case No. 124 on this court's calendar) was commenced by the American Oil Company against James L. Karns as Administrator of the Motor Vehicle Division on July 31, 1970. The judgment in that case dated September 14, 1970, declared that trailer mounted liquid fertilizer applicators were 'implements of husbandry' and that trailer mounted liquid fertilizer containers, with and without attached application equipment, were not.

The determination of whether the fertilizer equipment falls within the definition of 'implements of husbandry' is crucial in the decision of the cases. The Wisconsin Vehicle Code, in chapters 340, 341, 343, 347, and 348, exempts 'implements of husbandry' from various statutes that require the licensing of operators and the placement of various safety signals and devices upon vehicles on the highway. 'Implement of husbandry' is defined in sec. 340.01(24), Stats.:

"Implement of husbandry' means a vehicle or piece of equipment or machinery designed for agricultural purposes, used exclusively in the conduct of agricultural operations and used principally off the highway.'

The plaintiffs in each case seek to have their equipment declared to be within the exemption as 'implements of husbandry.'

In Case No. 123 (the Fertilizer case), the vehicles which are the subject of the appeal are dry fertilizer applicators. They are boxes on wheels holding from four to eight tons of bulk fertilizer in a granular form, with a conveyor belt at the bottom of the hopper box, so that when the applicator is towed on a field the fertilizer is discharged at the rear onto a spreader mechanism. The trial court found these bulk fertilizer applicators to be 'implements of husbandry.' It made the same finding in regard to trailer mounted liquid fertilizer applicators, although in respect to the latter implement there is a question raised as to whether the state contested the matter in the course of the trial. The court also held that the trailer mounted liquid fertilizer containers were not 'implements of husbandry.' In that case the state has appealed from the judgment, contending that the bulk dry fertilizer applicators were not 'implements of husbandry,' and it also asserts that it took issue at trial with the plaintiffs' assertion that the trailer mounted liquid fertilizer applicators were 'implements of husbandry.' The plaintiffs have not appealed from the portion of the judgment holding that trailer mounted liquid fertilizer containers were not 'implements of husbandry.'

In Case No. 124 (the American Oil Company case), the court declared that the trailer mounted liquid fertilizer applicators were 'implements of husbandry,' but that the trailer mounted liquid fertilizer containers, with and without attached application equipment, were not. American Oil Company has appealed from that portion of the judgment that declared that trailer mounted liquid fertilizer containers were not 'implements of husbandry.' The state has cross-appealed from that portion of the judgment which declared that trailer mounted liquid fertilizer applicators are 'implements of husbandry.'

In each of the cases, trailer mounted liquid fertilizer applicators, are relatively small pieces of equipment, having mounted on them a tank containing the fertilizer and having as an integral part of the mechanism applicators that inject the fertilizer onto or into the soil. There was testimony that the tank on the trailer mounted applicators was never bigger than 560 gallons. It appears that the trailer mounted liquid fertilizer applicators were, as a rule, filled in the field from a nurse tank ¹ which had a capacity of approximately 1,000 gallons and which was used to transport the fertilizer to the farming site. At the time the first case, Case No. 123 (the Fertilizer case), was commenced (1967), the universal practice was to supply the liquid fertilizer applicators from nurse tanks on trailers, and on some occasions, from special trucks. At the time the second case, Case No. 124 (American Oil case), was commenced (1970), the industry practice had changed, and the practice now is that one-third of the time the large 1,000 gallon nurse tanks are attached to tool bars and this rig, in tandem, is towed across the fields so that the application to the soil is made directly from the nurse tank to the tool bar applicator. In each case, the nurse tanks were towed on the highway to the scene of the farming operations. The plaintiff in Case No. 124 (American Oil case) contends that there is no evidence to show that its nurse tanks ever transported fertilizer to more than one farm on a single trip. The evidence in Case No. 123 (the Fertilizer case) indicates that the nurse tanks were on occasion used to make multiple deliveries, filling one farmer's tank and then going on to the scene of another farm operation.

Additional facts will appear in the opinion.

Robert W. Warren, Atty. Gen., Richard E. Barrett and E. Gordon Young, Asst. Attys. Gen., Madison, for appellant James L. Karns.

Quarles, Herriott, Clemons, Teschner & Noelke, Milwaukee (Maxwell H. Herriott & Frank J. Daily, Milwaukee, of counsel), for American Oil Co.

Willink & Thompson, Madison, for Wisconsin Fertilizer Ass'n.

HEFFERNAN, Justice.

The statute involved, sec. 340.01(24), Stats., provides:

"Implement of husbandry' means a vehicle or piece of equipment or machinery designed for agricultural purposes, used exclusively in the conduct of agricultural operations and used principally off the highway.'

When statutory language is clear and unambiguous, the judiciary is not permitted to construe a statute but must apply it by giving the language the meaning that is apparent from the literal words of the statute. National Amusement Co. v. Department of Revenue (1969) 41 Wis.2d 261, 163 N.W.2d 625. On the other hand, when the plain meaning is not apparent when read literally, a court is obliged to attempt to determine the legislative intent and must construe the statute in accordance with the legislature's purpose. State ex rel. Gutbrod v. Wolke (1971), 49 Wis.2d 736, 183 N.W.2d 161.

The terms appearing in sec. 340.01(24), Stats., have meanings that are not clear and unequivocal upon their face. Well informed and reasonable persons might well differ, as they have in these cases, over the meaning of the phrases, 'designed for agricultural purposes,' 'used exclusively in the conduct of agricultural operations,' and 'used principally off the highway.'

We are satisfied that the statute is ambiguous and requires a judicial construction.

It is the position of the Wisconsin Fertilizer Association and the American Oil Company that the terms should be construed liberally in the interests of furthering the legislative intent, which, they contend, is to advance the art of agriculture in Wisconsin. In the Fertilizer case, for example, it is argued that 'agricultural operations' includes, almost without limitation, all the activities involved in the transportation of tools, commodities, and raw materials to and from the farm. The state in both cases argues that there be a strict construction and the meaning of the terms be limited to those activities that occur in the normal course of the farmer's business of farming, that the vehicles must be owned by the farmer, and that there be no commercial activity involved other than the commerce of the farmer himself.

The exemption for 'implements of husbandry' appears in ch. 340, Stats. That chapter is captioned, 'General Provisions, Title XXXII Vehicle Code.' The entire purport of Title XXXII is the furtherance of highway safety, and any exceptions that appear in the code must be strictly limited to further the purpose of the legislature to assure that vehicles on the highway be safe and be operated by competent drivers.

The committee drafting the revision of the 1957 vehicle code, in its note to the statutory definition of 'implements of husbandry' in sec. 340.01(24), Stats., referred to prior attorneys general's opinions which dealt with that term. We have previously stated that, where opinions of the attorney general are followed in new legislation or where there is an apparent intent to conform the statutory meaning to these prior interpretations, such opinions are an authoritative part of the legislative history and may be relied upon in the process of judicial construction. State v. Ludwig (1966), 31 Wis.2d 690, 698, 143 N.W.2d 548; Green v. Jones (1964), 23 Wis.2d 551, 558, 128 N.W.2d 1. The term, 'implements of husbandry,' was dealt with in 28 Op.Atty.Gen. 311 (1939), 30 Op.Atty.Gen., 312 (1941), and 44 Op.Atty.Gen. 103 (1955). All these opinions were prior to the enactment of the statutory definition. They are indicative of the fact that the committee, in its goal to pattern...