Britton Motor Service v. Dammann

14 F. Supp. 634, 1936 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1356
CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Wisconsin
DecidedApril 25, 1936
DocketNo. 2299
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 14 F. Supp. 634 (Britton Motor Service v. Dammann) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Wisconsin primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Britton Motor Service v. Dammann, 14 F. Supp. 634, 1936 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1356 (W.D. Wis. 1936).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This cause came on regularly to be heard before this court duly convened in. accordance with the provisions of the statutes applicable thereto, on the 1st day of April, 1936, at Madison, Wis., pursuant to the application of plaintiffs for an interlocutory injunction to enjoin defendants from enforcing the provisions of' sections 194.04 (2), 85.01, and 85.05, Wisconsin Statutes; and the plaintiffs having filed an amended complaint at the time of said hearing, defendants filing a motion to dismiss, and defendant Public Service Commission filing a separate answer; and the parties stipulating in open court that the cause may be submitted for final-determination upon the pleadings, affidavits, and briefs on file, and to be filed as directed by this court; and C. R. Dineen, Esq., appearing for the plaintiffs, James E. Finnegan, Attorney General, Leon E. Isaacson, Assistant Attorney General, Alvin C. Reis, Chief Counsel, Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, and Philip H. Porter appearing on behalf of the defendants, and Frederic W. Crosby and Amos M. Mathews appearing for the intervener; and the cause having been fully argued by counsel and the briefs having been filed as directed; and, being advised in the premises, now then this court, pursuant to Equity Rule 70% (28 U.S.C.A. following section 723), makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:

Findings of Fact.

1. Plaintiffs and intervener are common carriers engaged in interstate transportation of freight by motor vehicle to and from points outside the state of Wisconsin into and through the state of Wisconsin.

2. That the defendants Theodore Dammann and Robert K. Henry are, respec[635]*635tively, the secretary of state and the state treasurer of the state of Wisconsin.

3. That the defendants Andrew R. McDonald and Fred S. Hunt are members of the public service commission of the state of Wisconsin.

4. That the defendants are charged, under the statutes of the state of Wisconsin, with the enforcement of sections 85.01, 85.05 (2) (a) and (b), 194.04 (2), Wisconsin Statutes.

5. That the intervener, Earl F. Schultz, doing business under the firm name and style of Service Transfer & Storage Company, is a citizen of Wisconsin residing at La Crosse, and is now, and has been for more than two years, engaged in business as common carrier of freight by motor vehicle under said firm name, with his principal place of business at La Crosse, Wis., and is authorized to engage in the business of transporting merchandise and property as a common carrier for hire by motor vehicle in interstate commerce between Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn., and Chicago, 111.,, through and across the state of Wisconsin and upon public highways of Wisconsin.

6. Plaintiffs complain that section 194.-04 (2), Wisconsin Statutes, which provides that the public service commission of Wisconsin may not issue a permit under the Motor Vehicle Law of the state, unless the registration fee, provided by 85.01, Wisconsin Statutes, is paid to the secretary of state of Wisconsin, is unconstitutional, because said registration fee, coupled with other taxes and fees paid to the state of Wisconsin, constitutes an undue burden on interstate commerce.

7. The registration fee, provided by section 85.01, Wisconsin Statutes, is graduated in size according to the weight and type of motor vehicle, but is a flat fee identical in amount as to all vehicles of the same weight and typé, whether operated in intrastate commerce or interstate commerce or both.

8. The entire proceeds from the motor vehicle registration fee are .applied to the use of highways in Wisconsin and no part thereof is allocated to any other purpose.

9. The amount of the registration fee in fact bears a relation to the use of the highways because all of said fee is a tax devoted exclusively to highway needs.

10. There exists in fact no discrimination against interstate commerce because all common carriers, whether interstate or exclusively intrastate, pay the same measure of fee for the same kind of vehicle.

11. The public service commission, in granting permits to interstate common carriers by motor vehicle, has not arbitrarily denied to any such carrier the use of any highways requested nor unreasonably confined any such carrier in its operations.

12. The public service commission grants permits to intrastate common carriers by motor vehicle, as well as to such interstate carriers, and each carrier’s permit, whether interstate or intrastate, prescribes the routes of permitted travel.

13. The amount of the registration fee payable to the secretary of state is reasonable in amount and does not in fact constitute an unreasonable burden upon interstate commerce on a mileage basis or according to any other reasonable standard of measurement.

14. That the plaintiff Britton Motor Service, Inc., operates twenty-nine vehicles in the state of Wisconsin. The registration fees in question upon said vehicles, over a year’s period of time for which the registration fees are paid, amount to 25 cents per vehicle per day. Plaintiff is authorized to operate such vehicle over 546 miles of highway in Wisconsin per day.

15. That the plaintiff Roosevelt Cartage Company at present is authorized to operate one tractor-trailer combination between Milwaukee, Wis., and the Illinois state line, a distance of 44 miles, through Racine and Kenosha. The registration fee in question on such tractor-trailer combination would amount to $112.50. Daily or more frequent trips are authorized. Assuming one round trip per day, or 88 miles in Wisconsin, this license fee amounts to 30 cents per day, or one-third of a cent per mile per day for such combination, which actually includes two vehicles.

16. That the records of the public service commission of Wisconsin do not disclose any authority granted to Hart Motor Express Company, a Minnesota corporation, but do disclose a certificate issued to George Hart authorizing him to operate upon the Wisconsin public highways [636]*636between the Minnesota and Illinois state lines, a distance of 435 miles of highway, daily, or more frequent as desired. Said Hart is authorized to operate three tractors and three trailers on which the license fees in question would amount to $455. Considering the said tractors and trailers as three complete combinations, the license fees in question would amount to 41 cents per day for each combination, or less than one-tenth of a cent per mile per day.

17. That the plaintiff Liberty Trucking Company, Inc., is authorized to operate three trucks, two tractors, and three trailers a distance of 112 miles over the Wisconsin highways from the Illinois state line to Janesville, Wis. The license fees in question on said eight vehicles would amount to $580. Daily operation, or more frequent as desired, is authorized, making the license fee on each of the eight vehicles amount to 20 cents per day, or less than one-fiftieth of a cent per mile per day.

18. That the plaintiff Werner Transportation Company is authorized to operate by various routes over the Wisconsin highways between Minnesota and Illinois, a distance of 1,720 miles of highway, daily or more frequent as desired; and is authorized to operate ten tractors and eleven trailers, upon which the license fees in question would amount to $2,903. Assuming a daily operation of each of said vehicles, the cost per vehicle per day is 38 cents.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Schneider Transport, Inc. v. Cattanach
657 F.2d 128 (Seventh Circuit, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
14 F. Supp. 634, 1936 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1356, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/britton-motor-service-v-dammann-wiwd-1936.