Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1947 )


Menu:
  •                                                    Jan. 27, 1947
    I&en. V. H. Sagebiel                                Opinion No. V-48
    Cbunty Attorney
    Gillespie  County                                   Re:   Construction   of Article
    Fredericksburg,    Texas                                  8,27a, Section 3(a), Vera-
    nen’s Annotated Criminal
    Statutes of Texas, Penal
    4   ‘. , .”.i
    Code, in reference    to im-
    plements of husbandry,
    and highway building and
    .                   maintenance    machinery.
    ..
    Dear        Sir:
    We are in receipt of your letter of January 14,, 1947, in
    which you request the opinion of the department   en the questions
    contained in yeur letter which reads as follows;
    “An opinion is requefted   as to the interpretation
    of the exceptions   listed in Article 927a, Sec. 3 (a),
    viz., ‘implementa    of hu1badry . + I* aad highway
    building dnd mafntenance      machinery  temporarily
    propelled Q& moved upan      t&u public highways.’
    .              “The situation we have involves the transpor-
    tation on the public highways, on its own wheels,
    of a privately-owned    ten cubic yard power scraper
    which is conceded to be more than 96 inches in
    . .. .       ..          width, and which was transported      for the purpose,,
    of building privately-owned     earth tanks,    It is con-           ‘.~
    tended that the transporting    was an acoamodatien
    to the owners who are good customers         of the firm              ~
    of which the defendapt is a member,       and that the
    defendant and his firm received no compensation
    nor had any other connec,tion with the scraper than
    its transportation;   and further, that the scraper
    comes within the exceptions above noted.
    “A cut of a scraper       similar     to the one involved
    is enclosed.”
    .’    As we view your request, based upon the contents of
    your letter (including the picture or cut of the power scraper),
    two questions are presented.
    .I
    I
    .
    Hon. V. H. Sagebiel    - Page 2                         Opinion No. V-4g
    1. Is the power scraper described   an “implement  of hus-
    bandryq so as’to come within the exception regarding implements
    of husbandry in Article  827a, Section 3(a), Vernon’s Annotated
    Criminal Statutes of Texas, Penal Code?
    2. Is the power scraper described   “highway building and
    maintenance    machinery”   so as to come within the exception re-
    garding highway and maintenance      machinery  in Article 8270, Sec-
    tion 3(a), Vernon’s   Annotated Criminal Statutes of Texas, Penal
    Code 7
    Article 827a, Section 3(a)* Vernon’s   Annotated Criminal
    Statutes of Texas, Penal Code (as amended, Acts 1931, 42ad Legis-
    lature, p. 507p ch. 282, Sec. 3), reads as follows:
    “‘No vehicle shall exceed a total outside width,
    including any load thereon, of ninety-six     (96) inches,
    except that the width of a farm tractor shall not ex-
    ceed nine (9) feet, and except further, that the limi-
    tations as to size of vehicle stated in this section
    shall not apply to implements     of husbandry,   includ-
    ing machinery    usea solely for the purpose of drilling,
    water wells, and highway building and maintenance
    machinery    tern ,raraly propelled or moved upox, tiie
    public high&?        (Emphasis   ours)
    The power scraper      in questien is~ a large four-wheeled
    scraper with dual tires on tht,re+r,       more than ninety-six      (96)
    inches in width, and capable of moving ten cubic yards of earth
    each time it is operated.     It is drawn or towed by a full tract ve-
    hicle or similar mechanical      forcer   Under the facts stated it was
    moved over a highway onto private land for use in constructing            an
    earthen tank. Under the definition of “vehicle”” as defined by the
    Legislature   in Article 
    827a, supra
    , the scraper        is a vehicle inas-
    much as it is a m0 . 0   mechanical    device,   in, upon  or by which any
    person or propetty     is or may be transported       or drawn upon a
    public highway . a .R See Commercial          Standard   Ins. Co. v. Mc-
    Kinxey, 114 S. W. (2d) 33g (Tex. Civ. App. 1938).
    The term “implementsof       husbandry” has not been de-
    fined by the Legislature   in the particular  statute in question.
    Suck being true, and the intent remaining obscure after a reading
    of tbe entire act, we may consider other laws and circumstances
    indicating the legislative  intention.
    tex Co,, l2Q Tex. 166, 36 S. W, (2d)
    Tsx.rim.       Rev. 188. 
    170 S.W. 548
       Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, 192’5, ai amended (Relist-n        ..
    and Regulation of Vehicles) , “implements     of husbandry” are de-
    .. fined as follows:
    Hon. V. H. Sagebiel     - Page   3                      Opinion No. V-48
    “(4    ‘implements’of   husbandry’ shall mean farm
    implements,     machinery   and tools as used in til-
    the solI, but shall not mclude any passenger     car or
    m          (Emphasis   our~s)
    Article 6687b, Section 1, Texas Revised Civil Statutes,
    (Acts 1941, 47th Legislature,    as amended Acts 1943, 48th Legisla-
    tut)  defines “implements     of husbandry” as follows:
    “(8) ‘Implements    of Husbandry.’    Farm imple-
    merits, machinery    and toolsas,   used in tilling the
    soil, namely:   cultivatdrs,  farm tractors,     reapers,
    binders, combines,     or mowing machinery,       but shall
    not mclude any autsmoblle      or truck.”   (timphasls
    ours)
    Ballentine    defines   “Implements   of Husbandry”     as follows:
    “Anv instrument used directlv in the business
    ,of farming, and for no other purpose is an imple-
    ment of husbandry.      Horse rakes, gang plows,
    headers,   threshing machties,   and combined har-
    vesters   are as clearly implements    of husbandry
    as are hand rakes, single plows, sickles,      cradles,
    flails, or an old fashioned machine for winnowing,
    There is no ground for excluding an implement
    from the operation of the exemption statute be-
    cause it is an improvement,     and supplants a farm
    implement used with less effeativeness      for the
    same purpose.      Estate of Klemp, 
    119 Cal. 41
    , 39
    L. R. A. 340, 58 Pacr, Rep. 1062.” (Emphasis       ours)
    The Court of Criminal Appeals had before it in Reaves
    v. State, 121 Tex. Crim. Rep. 488, 50 S. W. (2d) 286 (1931)r
    question of whether or not a motor truck with trailer exceeding
    forty-five  feet in length and transporting  baled hay, cotton and
    feed stuffs, came within the exemption stated in Article 827a,
    Section 
    3(a), supra
    .    The court in halding that the truck did not
    come within the implement ,of husbandry exception defined “im-
    plements of husbandry” under the statute as follows!
    I
    . . . An implement of husbandry is something
    necessary     to the carrying en of the business of
    farmmg,     etc., wrthout whrch the work cannot be
    done. 31 ,Corpus Jurrs, p. 256.     (hmphasrs   ours)
    No other    Case has construed the term ?implements       of
    husbandry” under      the Article in question.   The Supreme Court
    of Texas in Allred     v. J. C. Engelman,   
    123 Tex. 205
    , 61 S. W. (2d)
    75 (1933) held that    a water truck was an implement of husbandry
    Hon. V. H. Sagebiel   - Page 4                          Opinion No. V-40
    within the meaning ef Article 6675a-1 et seq., which was used for
    transporting  waer to a citrus farm, a& the Amarillo       Court of
    Civil Appeals in Bean v. Reeves,   77 S. W. (Zd) 737 (1934, Rehear-
    ing Denied), held that a truck used exclusively    in Oonnection with
    the business of the owner’s farm and temporarily       operating on
    the highways in transporting  the owner’s Cotton to the gin, and
    farm products to market was an “implement        of husbandry’ and
    therefore exempt from registration    fees.  Both of these cases
    arose prior to the amendment of Article     6675r-1 et seq., in 1741
    when the Legislature   added the definition of *implements     of hus-
    bandry” to the act, and they therefore throw no light on the deci-
    sion of the question involved in this opinion.
    We think it clear from what has been said, and especially
    under the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals in Reaves v.
    
    State, supra
    , that the power scraper above described     was not an
    implement      of husbandry” as that term is used in Article  8270,
    Section 
    3(a), supra
    .    The answer to the first question is therefore
    in the negative.
    We have been unable to find any case construing the
    terms “highway building and maintenance    machinery”   as used in
    Article g27a, Section 
    3(a), supra
    . It was said by the court  in
    Reaves v. 
    State, supra
    , page 287, that:
    ”
    . . i Recognining that of necessity some forms
    of transportable    machinery  must move from one
    place to another, and that over said highways, ex-
    ceptions were inserted in the statute , , .*
    *The permission   of the exceptions here apperr-
    ing extends no further than to the implement or ma-
    chine itself when in form or sine violative of the
    statute . . .*
    It seems clear that the Legislature       in using the term
    “highway building and maintenance         machinery*    intended to dcsig-
    nate a particular    type of heavy machinery      commonly used in the
    construction    andmaintenance      of roads and hIghways as being ex-
    empt from the operation of the statute where it was only tempo-
    rarily moved over the highway.         The Legislature     evidently had in
    mind that it was impossible       to anticipate and describe by name
    every heavy machinery wherle particular          design would bring it
    within the classification     of “highway maintenance       and building
    machinery.a      It seems evident that the purpese of the legislation
    was to exempt from the prohibitioio         of the Ptrtute all machines
    of a type primarily     designed for highway construction        and mrin-
    tenance, temporarily      using the highways,     when their size and
    form brought them witbin the prohibitions.          Compare Allred v.
    Hon.   V. H. Sagebiel   - Page   5                        Opinion No. V-48
    J. E. Engelman,    
    123 Tex. 205
    ,   61 S. W. (2d) 75 (1933).
    It is important to observe that ~the statute does not qualify,
    the term ‘highway building and maintenance           machinery?   by requir-
    ing that the use of the machine be devoted solely to highway build-
    ing and maintenance       before It ~111 come w~thm the exemptron as Qie
    Legislature      saw fit to do with respect to.“machinery     used solely for
    the purpose of drilling water wells,” which appears as a part of the
    same statute.       (timphasis  ours) It therefore follows, in our opinion,
    that the term “highway building and maintenance           machinery”   was
    used to designate 8 p8sticular       type of heavy machinery    and equip-
    ment commonly used in connection with highway maintenance              and
    construction.      The fact that the machine might; at times, be dedi-
    cated to some other use does n&within          itself eliminate it from the
    clcssificrtion.
    Webster’s New International        Dictionary,  Second Series,   un-
    abridged, defines the word.‘scr*per*         in p8rt 8s follows:
    “An apparatus drawn by horses or other means for
    scraping up, transpo’rting and dumping earth in making
    roads, canals, etc. . . The two-wheeled   and four-
    wheeled scrapers   have a metal scoop, suspende~d from
    an axle on wheels, that can be raised to clear the
    ground after loading.”    (Emphasis ours)
    The picture and description       of the power scraper under
    consideration   reflects th8t it is 8 type commonly       seen in use today
    by eonetruction   companies      in the building of highways, dams, arti-
    ficial lakes, levees, and the such like. It is. true that the prrticular
    power, morapei, equipped with pneumatic          tires, bogies and other
    modern mechanical       devices is vrstly different from scrapers       seen
    .
    m operation in the building ef reads ar+d general construction          works
    several years ago, but it seems evident that such was one of the
    purposes of the Legislature       in defining such machinery     in general
    terms so as to take care of constantly changing conditions and im-
    provement    in machinery     of this type.
    It is a generrl    rule of statutory construction     that in the
    absence of a contrary      indication legislative    enactments   which are
    prospective    in operation and which are couched in general and corn-
    prehensive   terms broad enough to include ~unknown things that might
    spring into existence in the future, apply alike to new thing,*, coming
    into existence    subsequent to their passage where such things are of
    the same class as those specified,         and are within the general pur&
    view, scope, purpo,se and policy ef the statute and the evident mean-
    ing of the term used.      50 Am.         Sec. 419, Zucrrro v, Strte, 82
    Tex. Grim. Rep. 1, 197                   L.R.A.   19198, 35-I           PPlYinK
    this rule of construction     the legislative   designation of “highway
    Hon. V. H. Sagebiel    - Page   6                       Opinion      No. V-48
    building and maintenance machinery”  would include a modern
    power scraper equipped with pneumatic tires, bogies, and other
    mechanical  devices.
    In answer to what constitutea a temporary  movement or
    propelling   along the highway as contemplated by the statute, the
    court in Reaves v. 
    State, supra
    , said:
    .
    . . . if a farmer should desire to transport    such
    vehicle along the highways from place of purchase
    to place of intended use, or from one place of use to
    another. this would be the ‘temuorarv     nronellms    or
    moving’ contemplated     by -subdi&ion   (6) quoted-
    above, and would hence be permissible       . , .” (Em-
    phasis ours)
    Based upen the above and foregoing,     we are of the opinion
    that the four-wheeled  power scraper described      is “highway build-
    ing and maintenance   machinery”    within the meaning of Article 8278,
    Section 
    3(a), supra
    , notwithstanding   the fact that it was temporarily
    moved over the highway for use in constructing       an earthen tank on
    private land. Our answer to your second question is in the affir-
    mative .
    SUMMARY
    1. A large four-wheeled      power scraper exceed-
    &g ninety-six    (96) inches in width, and capable of
    moving ten yard8 of dirt in each operation,        and used
    in constructing    an earthen tank on private land, held
    not to be an “implement      of husbandry” under the ex-
    ceptions contained in Article      827a, Section 3(a),
    Vernon’s   Annotated Criminal Statutes of Texas.
    2. A large four-wheeled      power scraper exceed-
    ing ninety-six   (96) inches in width, and capable of
    moving ten yards of dirt in each operation, which
    was temporarily      moved over a highway onto p*i-
    vste land for uoe in constructing      a privately owned
    earthen tank, held to ,be “highway LuiIding and mrin-
    tenance machinery”      and within the exception con-
    tained in Article 827r, Section 3(a), Vernon’s       An-
    notated Criminal Statutes of Texas, even though
    temporarily     devoted to construction     of an earthen
    tank rather than kighway building and maintenance..~.
    You m-5 very truly,
    APPROVED                            ATTO lRNEY GENERAL      OF TEXAS
    Assistant
    CDM: jt: sl      APPROVED-OPINION.COlvlMITTEE
    BY   BWB - CHAIRMAN
    

Document Info

Docket Number: V-48

Judges: Price Daniel

Filed Date: 7/2/1947

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017