Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1953 )

TEIEATTORNEYGENERAL
OF TEXAS
September 3, 1953
Honorable J. R. Alamia Opinion No. S-97
Criminal District Attorney
Hldalgo County Re: Legality of claaslfg-
Rdinburg, Texas ing tank trucks used
by farmers to haul
water over public
highways as "imple-
Dear Mr. Alamia: ments of husbandry."
Your request for an opinion reads In part:
"Certain tank trucks are being used by a
farmer for the transportation of water to and
from several of his farms. These trucks are
used exclusively for the purpose of transport-
ing water to said farms to be used in the cul-
tivation of crops. Said trucks operate, of ne-
cessity, upon public highways en route to various
farms or portions of farms. The water is intended
solely for the use of the owner of the trucks and
said trucks are not put out for hire. The owner
of said trucks has failed to register said vehicles
insisting that they are implements of husbandry
and the operators of same are not licensed as motor
vehicle operators as provided by Texas law.
"Question No. 1. Do these water trucks fall
under the category of 'implements of husbandry'
as defined in Art. 6675a-1, R.C.S., and If so are
they exempt from registration?
"guestion No. 2. If these water trucks do
not fall within the category of 'Implements of
husbandry' and they are liable to registration,
then in that event do they fall within the mean-
ing of Art: 6675a-da providing for a 50s reduc-
tion of registration fees for certain farm
vehicles?
"Quea;lon No. 3. Are persons operating such
water true a on public h&hways temporarily re-
quired to have a motor vehicle operator'8 llcense?n
. .
Ron. J. R. Alamla, page 2 (s-97)
Article 6675a-2 reads in part as follows:
“Every owner of a motor vehicle, trailer or
semi-trailer used or to .--
be used upon
- the public
highways of this State snall apply eactl year to
the State Highway Department through the County
Tax Collector of the county in which he resides
for the registration of each such vehicle owned
or controlled by him for the ensuing Or current
calendar year 0 0 o Owners of farm tractors, farm
trailers, farm semi-trallers, implements of hus-
bandry, and machinery used.solely for the purpose
of drilling water wells operated or moved tempo-
rarily upon the highways shall not be required to
register such farm tractors, farm trailers, farm
seal-trailers, implements $f husbandry, and well-
drllllng machinery; 0 0 D
Prior to 1941, Article 6675a-1 defined "motor
vehicle, ' "farm-tractor," and 'farm semi-trailer," but
did not deflne "Implements of husbandry." The question
arose as to whether or not a water tank truck, used ex-
clusively for the purpose of hauling water to and between
certain farms and thereby used temporarily on the public
highways, was an "Implement of husbandry" within the
meaning of Article 6675a-2. This question was decided
in Allred v. J. C. Ennelman. Inc,, 123 Tex. 205, 61
S.W.26 75 (1933), which construed Article 6675a-2 to
Include such water trucks within the meaning of "lm-
plements of husbandry" therein. Also see Bean v. Reeves,
77 s.W.26 737 (Tex. Civ. App. 1934).
The EnneIman case settled the law on the sub-
ject until 1941, at which time the 47th Regular Session
of the Legislature passed Senate Bill No. 43, adding
a new section to Article 6675a-1, which defined Ample-
ments of husbandry as follows:
"iImplements of husbandry' shall mean farm
Implements, machlnerg and tools as used In tilling
the soil, but shall not include any PassenRer car
or truck." (Emphasis added.)
It cannot be doubted that the Legislature has
the power to make or change the law In this field and
by the words "shall.not include any passenger car or
truck" it clearly and unambiguously excluded all trucks
from the definition of Implements of husbandry. It Would
indeed requlre a stralned construction of the above sec-
tion to except such water tank trucks as are here involved
, . .
Hon. J. R. Alamia, page 3 (5-97)
from the scope of this exclusion. Your first question,
must, therefore, be answered “No.” The~trucks here ln-
volved are not Implements of husbandry and therefore
are not exempt from registration.
In answering your second question, we must
look to Article 6675a-6a, which reads In part as follows:
"When a commercial motor vehicle sought to
be registered and used by the owner thereof~only
ln the transportation of his own poultry, dairy,
livestock, livestock products, timber In Its natu-
ral state,~and farm products to market, or to other
points for sale or processing, or the transporta-
'tlon by the owner thereof of laborers from their
place of residence, and materials, tools, equipment
and supplies, without charge, from the place o'f
purchase or storage, to his own farm or ranch,
exclusively for his own use, or use on such farm
or ranch, the registration license fee, for the
weight classlflcations herein mentioned, shall be
fifty (50%) per cent of the registration fee pre-
scribed for welghf;classifications In Section 6
of the Act . . .
It Is obvious that the Leglslature cannot ln-
cluae every situation In which a farm truck might be
used nor everything which might be transported ln e farm
truck within the statute designating which trucks are
entitled to the reduced license fee, and they have, there,-
fore, used such general terms as "materials, tools, equlp-
ment and supplies" In setting out what materials or goods
may be transported.under this act. Clayton v. Bridgeport
Mach. Co., 33 S.W.2d 787 (Tex. Civ. App. 1931 error ref.)
defines %upplles" as "available aggregate of'thlngs needed
or demanded; anything yielded or afforded to meet 'a want."
United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. v.
Feenaughty Machinery Co., 197 Wash. 569, 85 P.2d 1085
x1939), defines supplies as:
II
. . . including anything that Is furnished
for, and used directly ln the carrying on of, the
work, and Is entirely consumed thereby."
3~1~11v. Delaney_ 175 Misc. 795, 25 N,.Y.S.2d
387 (1941), defines suppli& thus:
. .
Hon. J. R. Alan&a, page 4 (3-97)
"Supplies relatea to sotiethlngused directly
in carrying on work, something in addition to it,
those articles necessary for enabling an existing
entity to function properly."
The above deflnltlons would obviously Include
water as It is being used here within the scope of the
word "supplies." We also feel that the legislative ln-
tent la clear from the wording of the act that where
tank trucks are being used by a farmer for the transpor-
tation of water to his farm, these trucks being used
exclusively for this purpose and solely for the owner
of the trucks, they should fall within the provlslons
of Article 6675a-6a, providing for a 50s reduction of
registration fees. Your second question Is accordingly
answered in the affirmative.
In answer to your third question, we must look
to Article 6687b, V. C. 3. Section 2 of this article
reads In part as follows:
“(a) No person, bxcept thobe hereinafter
expressly exempted, shall.drive any motor vehicle
upon a highway ln this State unless such person
has a valid license as an operator, a commercial
operator, or a ckauffeur under the provisions of
this Act. . . .
Section 3 of Article 6687b states that the
following persons are exempt from license:
"2 . Any person while driving or operating
any road machine, farm tractor> or Implement of
husbandry temporarily operated or motiedon a hlgh-
way, and while driving or operating any commercial
motor vehicle temporarily on the highway in an emer-
gency."
The definition of "Implements of husbandry"
contained in Section 1 of Article 6687b excludes any
automobile or truck, as does the definltlon In Article
6675a-1. From the answer to your first question, It
follows that the trucks here Involved are not Implements
of husbandry within this exemption. The trucks are com-
mercial motor vehicles which, In a sense, are being
"tem~rarlly" operated on the highway, but they are not
being "temporarily operated ln an emergency" and conse-
;y;;tly do not come within the latter part of the exemp-
. Since they are not within any of the exemptions
. ..
Hon. J. R. Alamla, page 5 (3-w)
In the statute, the drivers of these trucks must have
a license for their operation on a highway.
Section 3 of Article 6687b contains this fur-
ther provision, added in 1951:
“48. A person operatlng a commercial motor
vehicle, the ross weight of which does not exceed
six thousand 76,000) pounds as that term Is defined
in Article 6675a-6 of the Revised Civil Statutes
of Texas, operated In the manner and bearing cur-
rent farm registration plates as provided in Article
6675a-6a of the Revised Civil Statutes, who holds
an operator’s license, shall not be required to
obtain a commercial operator’s license. I’
It was held ln answer to your second question
that these trucks are entitled to registration under
Art lcle 6675a-6a. If so registered and the gross weight
of the truck does not exceed 6,000 pounds, an operator’s
license is all that Is requlred. If the gross weight
exceeds 6,000 pounds, the driver Is required to hold
a commercial operator’s license. Att’y. Gen. Op. 0-3560
(1941) 0
SUMMARY
Tank trucks being operated on a public hlgh-
way by a farmer In the transportation of water to
and between several of his farms to be used in the
cultivation of crops, they being used exclusively
for thls purpose and for the use of that farmer
only, are not implements of husbandry and there-
fore must be registered under the provisions of
Article 6675a-2, but they are entitled to the 50%
reduction in registration fee provided for in
Article 6675a-6a. Their drivers must have a driver's
license, and they are required to have a commercial
operator’s license If the gross weight of the truck
exceeds 6,000 ponds.
APPROVED:
Yours very truly,
M. Richardson
State Affairs Division
JOHN BEN SHEPPEBD
& e;LrWall Attorney General
f
Robert 3. Trottl
First Assistant By @dd?dk@
David Beerbower
John Ben Sheppard Assistant
Attorney General