-
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. 548Revised 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