[DOWNLOAD] "Mid-South Chemical Corp. v. Carpentier" by Supreme Court of Illinois # Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Mid-South Chemical Corp. v. Carpentier
- Author : Supreme Court of Illinois
- Release Date : January 18, 1958
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 71 KB
Description
This appeal and cross appeal, involving interests of the State, pose the question of whether certain vehicles owned by plaintiff,
the Mid-South Chemical Corporation, are exempt from the registration and licensing provisions of section 9 of the Motor Vehicle
Act. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1955, chap. 95 1/2, par. 9.) The section in question creates a so-called agricultural exemption in the
following terms: "Provided, that none of the provisions of this Act requiring or prescribing registration shall be construed
to include farm tractors, traction engines, threshing machines, clover hullers, ensilage cutters, corn shredders, corn shellers,
corn grinders, hay presses, portable saw mills, binders, combines, farm machinery and implements, farm wagons, or like vehicles,
trailers or semi-trailers used in connection therewith, which are used primarily in the agricultural pursuits of the owner
thereof or in connection with the agricultural pursuits of others, or vehicles used exclusively for moving water well drilling
outfits, but nothing in this proviso shall exclude from registration truck tractors, trucks, trailers, or semi-trailers engaged
in transporting agricultural products." Operating from 61 distributing plants located throughout the State, plaintiff is engaged in the business of selling a chemical
fertilizer (anhydrous ammonia) to farmers, all sales being F.O.B. at the plant site. At each of the plants plaintiff keeps
a number of vehicles described in the decree below as being farm wagons or trailers "of the four-wheel rubber-tired variety,
from which the wagon beds were removed or which were purchased without wagon beds and upon which pressure tanks designed to
carry compressed gas (primarily of five hundred or one thousand gallon water capacity) have been mounted." These tank vehicles
are used exclusively for the purpose of hauling plaintiff's product from the distributing plant to the farm, there being neither
allegation nor proof that they are employed in applying the fertilizer to the soil. At each of the plants specific wagons
are allocated for specific use as follows: First, plaintiff's distributors use certain of the wagons to make deliveries to
the farms of their farmer customers; second, certain of the wagons are used by farmer customers who haul fertilizer to the
farm of a neighbor for the latter's use; and, third, farmer customers use certain of the wagons to haul fertilizer to their
own farms for their own use. Plaintiff makes no charge for the use of its wagons and charges the same unit price for its
fertilizer whether the farmer uses his own or a company wagon for hauling. Whether the same is true when plaintiff's distributors
make delivery to the farm is unanswered in the record.