Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1942 )


Menu:
  • Honorable William J. Tucker
    Executive Secretary
    Game, Fish & Oyster CommFsslon
    Austin, Texas
    Dear Sir:             Opinion NO. 0-4861
    Re: Under the facts submitted, should
    the Simms Food Market be required
    to procure a wholesale fish deal-
    er's license?
    You have requested the opinion of this department
    on the above stated question, based upon a statement of facts
    which we have taken the liberty of summarizing as follows:
    Mr. Walter Sitmnsoperates In the City of Austin a
    business house known as Simms Food Market, at which he makes
    sales at retail of aquatic products, and which Is covered by
    a retail fish dealer's license. He also owns and operates
    several trucks, from which sales of fish are made at whole-
    sale. The drivers of the trucks, operating from the trucks,
    take wholesale orders for aquatic products, and make deliver-
    ies from the trucks in fulfillment of such orders. Each
    such truck is covered by a wholesale truck dealer's fish ll-
    cerise.The question whether Mr. Slmms Is also liable for the
    payment of a wholesale fish dealer's license on his place of
    business in Austin arises from the following additional facts:
    A. The reta    store in Austln,fs also headquarters
    for the wholesale trucks. The fish with which the wholesale
    trucks are supplied are bought by and shipped to the Slmms
    Food Market, and there parcelled out to the wholesale trucks,
    as the trade of each may require.
    B. Sometimes a wholesale truck driver will take a
    wholesale order for aquatic products, and then, instead of
    filling the order by a delivery from the wholesale truck,
    will ship the order tomthe customer from the Simms Food Mar-
    ket in Austin by express or common carrier truck line.
    The f'ollowlngprovisions of Article 93&,Revlsed
    Penal Code of 1925, are applicable to the problem presented:
    "Section 1.   The following words, terms and
    -   --
    Honorable William J. Tucker, page 2            o-4861
    phrases used in this Act are hereby defined as
    follows:
    11
    . . . . .
    "(b) A 'Wholesale Fish Dealer' is any per-
    son engaged in the business of buying for the pur-
    pose of selling, canning, preserving or process-
    ing, or buying for the purpose of handling for
    shipment or sale, fish oroysters or shrimp or
    other commercial edible aquatic products, to re-
    tail fish dealers, and/or to hotels, restaurants
    or cafes and to the consumer.
    "(c) A 'Retail Fish Dealer' Is any person
    engaged In the business of buying for the purpose
    of selling either fresh or frozen edible aquatic
    products to the consumer.
    It
    . . . . .
    3ection 3.   The licenses and the fees to
    be paid for the same are hereby provided for in
    this Act and are as follows:
    I,
    . . . . .
    11'
    a. Wholesale Fish Dealers License, fee.
    for each place 'of business, Two Hundred Dollars
    ($200    .oo)   .
    "2a. Wholesale Truck Dealers Fish License,
    fee for each truck, One Hundred Dollars ($100.00).
    II
    . . . . .
    "11. Plaoe of business, as used In this
    Act, shall Include the place where orders for
    aquatic products are received, or where aquatic
    products are sold, and if sold from a vehicle, the
    vehicles on which, or from which, such aquatic pro-
    ducts are sold, shall constitute a place of busl-
    ness. . . . (As amended, Acts 1934, 43rd Leg.,
    3rd C. S., p. 83, Ch, 40, Sec. 1; Acts 1935, 44th
    Leg., p. 808, Ch. 345, Sec. l)."
    As polnted out by you, nowhere in the law is the
    phrase "Wholesale Truck Dealer" defined.
    A careful reading of the above provision relating
    Honorable William J. Tucker, page 3,         o-4861
    to 'place of business" convinces ua that where aquatic pro-
    ducts are sold only &om trucks, it is not Intended to levy
    a license fee upon the warehouse or other place where the
    fish are received and distributed to the trucks,'ln addition
    to the license fee levied upon each truck. Thus, under the
    facts stated in “A” above, atandlng alone, the Slmms Food
    Market is not required tD purchesb a Wholesale FPah Dea'ler's
    License, In addition to the truck dealer's licenses.
    But the facts utlder "B" above present a different
    sltuatlon. Under those facts, the aquat~icproducts are not
    sold on or from the trucks -- the only use made of the trucks
    being to permit the salesmen to call upon customers and take
    orders. The sales are in fact made from the business   house
    in Austin -- wholesale shipments being made from It direct
    to the customers by common carriers. To permYt such a busi-
    ness to be conducted by one who possesses only a Wholesa~le
    Truck Dealer's Fish Llcenae, for whi'chhe has paid $100.00,
    would be an unjust dlscrimlnatlon agalnat one who .had pald
    $200.00 for a Wholesale Fish Dealer'.sLfcenae, for it would
    permit the purchaser of the $100.00 lrcense to do evergthlng
    which the purchaser of the $200.00 license Fa permItted to
    do, and more besides.
    Article 7,   Penal Code of 1925, provides:
    "This Code and every other law upon the aub-
    ject of crime which may be enacted s'hallbe con-
    strued,according to the plain Import of the I;an-
    guage in which It is written, without regard to
    the distinction usually made between the con-
    struction of penal laws and laws upon oth%r sub-
    jects; and no person shall be punished for an
    offense which is not made penal by the plain im-
    port of the words of a law."
    "As regards the construction of e statute,
    it la presumed that the Legislature Intended that
    it should be given a just and reasonable inter-
    pretation." 39 T. J. 2117 (citing Leaey v. State
    Banking Board, 
    118 Tex. 91
    , 11 S. W. (28) 496.)
    "It Fa not presumed that the Leglalature
    intended to do or re uire an absurd or unfair
    thing." 39 T. J. 24,8 (citing Davis v. Payne (Clv.
    App. 
    179 S.W. 60
    ; City of Tyler v. Texas Em-
    players' Ins. Assn. (Corn.App.) 
    288 S.W. 409
    ,
    rehearing denied 294 9. W..'l95,and Oden v. Vatea,
    
    119 Tex. 76
    , 24 5. W,. (28) 381.)
    Honorable Wllllam~J. Tucker, page 4        o-4861
    It is therefore our opinion that, under the facts
    stated In 'B", above, the Slmms Food Market is required to
    purchase a Wholesale Fish Dealer's License.
    Yours very truly
    ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
    By s/W. R. Allen
    W. R. Allen
    Assistant
    WRA:db:wc
    APPROVED OCT 29, 1942
    s/Gerald C. Mann
    ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
    Approved Opinion Committee By s/BWB Chairman
    

Document Info

Docket Number: O-4861

Judges: Gerald Mann

Filed Date: 7/2/1942

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017