Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1958 )

October 23, 1958
Hon. Jack Fields Opinion No. !GJ 515
County Attorney
Calhoun county Re: Whether Union Carbide Chemical
Port Lavaca, Texas Company Mctor vehicles are re-
quired to be registered under
Article 6675a-2 of the Revised
C':,vil
Statutes cf Texas and
Arkicle EOirof the Penal Code
when such veticles traverse
0rGy seven-tenths of a mile
ever a State highway in the
Dear Mr.l'Fields: course 3f their operation.
Your request for an opinion reads, in ps.rt,as follows:
"Union Carbide Company owns and
operates a chemical plant located on
Highway No. 185 in Calhoun County, Texas.
"The motor vehicles in question
are used solely in connec%.ioawith she
plant operations of Union CarblAe, and
are upon a public highway only when
necessary to go from lands owned by tne
corporation on the other side or’ the
highway. Due to the location of ingress
and egress of said properties, it,is
necessary for said vehicles to traverse
the highway for approximately seven-
tenths of a mile.
"Union Carbide owns land altos; in
equal portions on each side of the iiigh-
way and each portion of land is directly
across the highway from the other.
"The question I wish an opinion on
being: Is the owner, its agents or em-
ployees, subject to prosecution under
Article 804 of the Penal Code in view of
Article 66aa-2 R.C.S. of T. when operating
Hon. Jack Fields Page 2 Opinion No. WW 515
its unregistered motor vehicle under the
facts as above set out."
Our answer to the above-mentioned question is no.
Art. 6675a-2 (C.V.S.) Is our motor vehicle registration
statute providing an exception from registration for the
following:
(1
. 9 ;provided, that where a ;Xblic
highway separates lands under the dominion
or control of the o-wner,the operation ef
such a motor vehicle by such owner, hl.s
agent or employees, across such '?i&hxy
shall not constitute a use of ?‘~,c"
mo7::r
;;~;zl$ upon a public highway of ::hia
Art. 804 (P.C.) provides a fine fcr those operzzing an
unregistered motor vehicle on a public 3.g'r~s.y.
The owners of the vehicles under the f;izt?.
ycu descri-53
fall within the exception quoted. The land ir:question .1s
seprrated by a public highway and nothing else, and the land
on either side is "under the dominion and control' of the
owner of the vehicles. In Brown v. Meadv 10 Me. 391, 25 Am.
Dec. 248, the Court said 'across. . " should be construed to
mean the right of passing in the most convenient route over
the field to the grantors bulldings, tkLo7@ Ln sz doing it w?c
necessary to pass over the lot tracsversly and lengthwise."
While the law generally construes an ex-epticn tc a revenue
statute strictly against the person claiming sine, the cases
construing Art. 6675a-2 have given It ;,liberal construction.
In Texas Highway Department, et al. v. Kimble Count.y,et al.,
239 S W. 2d 831, Court of Civil Appeals, Writ refused~N.R.E.
the Court stated.,"such article is, theref?rr:of a penal nrture
sendmust be construed most favorable to the owner of c:nevehicle".
Again in Allred, et al. v. J. C. Engleman 3s. Court of Civil
Appeals, 54 S.W.2d 152 Affirmed by the Supreme Court in 61
S.W.2d 75, the Cour< s:id "the statute rn>Jst be liberally con-
strued to effectuate its purposes and designs".
Hon. Jack Fields Page 3 Opinion No. WW 515
The statute In question being of a penal nature requires
"the act which is claimed to be a violation of penal law must
be fairly within Its terms to sustain an action for the penalt '
Thompson v. Missouri, K & T Ry. Co. of Tex., (Sup. Ct. of Tex.
126 s.x..257.
It is our opinion that under the facts presented, the
nature of the statute and the liberal construction placed thereon
by the cases, that the egress from the land on one side of the
highway need not be directly across the highway from the ingress
to the land on the other side.
It is to be understood that this opinion is limited solely
to the fact situation presented herein and that any other use of
said vehicle on a public highway would require registration.
SUMMARY
Where land under the dominion and control
of the owner of a motor vehicle is separated
by a public highway, said vehicle need not
be registered under Art. 6675a-2 R.C.S. of
Tex., where said vehicle is crossing the
highway from said land on one side to said
. land on the other side even though the egress
from the land on one side is not directly
across the highway from the ingress to the
land on the other side.
Yours very truly,
WILL WILSON
JCP:jc -"John C. Phillips
Assistant
APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE
L. P. Lollar, Chairman
Leon Pesek
Clyde Kennelly
RFVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: Morgan Nesbitt