No. 87-57
INTHE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1987

STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent,-vsDAVID W. PATTON, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL FROM: DistrictCourt of the SixthJudicialDistrict, In and for the County of Sweet Grass, The Honorable Byron Robb, Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant: Knuchel & McGregor; Karl Knuchel, Livingston, Montana For Respondent:
Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Dorothy McCarter, Asst. Atty. General, Helena G. Thomas Biglen, County Attorney, Big Timber, Montana James A. Tully, Deputy County Attorney, Big Timber

Submitted on Briefs: April 3, 1987 Decided: June 2, 1987

.. . . I. ,-..a .:. P,.. 1-,:G 

### /

"V Filed:

*& ClerkMr. Justice Fred J. Weber delivered the Opinionof the Court.

David FJ. Patton was found guilty of violating § 61-10-201, MCA,which requires payment of gross weight fees
on trucks,by bench trial in the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District,Sweet GrassCounty. We affirm. The issue is whether the DistrictCourt erred in deciding the truck was not exempt from vehicle licensing and registration requirements because it was not an implement of husbandry. Theparties stipulated to,and theDistrict Court adopted, thepertinent factsof this case. Those stipulated facts
are:
1. At approximately 9:30 AM onApril 8, 1986, Officer Charles Pratt came up behind an orange International dump truck while proceeding south on U.S. Highway 191 north of Melville in Sweet Grass County,Montana. Officer Pratt believed the truck to be a Montana Department of Highways truck, but noticed that the truck carried no license plates. 2. The truck was owned by Cremer Ranches, a Montana corporation engaged in agricultural operations, and driven by David M. Patton, a Cremer employee. At the time, Mr. Patton was operating the truck in the course of his employment and for the benefit of his employer. He was taking the truck from one part of the Cremer Ranch to another part of the ranch located to the south and across U.S. Highway 191. 3. The truck was purchased by the Cremer Ranches from the Department of Highways several years earlier at a private sale and has never been licensed or registered by Cremer Ranches. The truck has never been used by Cremer Ranches except in the course of ranch business and isnever driven on a public road or highway except to travel from one part of the ranch to another. The truck has not been modified by Cremer Ranches since it was purchased and is in essentially the same condition as when purchased, normal wear and tear excepted.

### 4. U.S. Highway 191 is a federal highway runningnorth and south in SweetGrass County. The Cremer Ranches own ranchproperty situated east and west of Highway 191 and the Cremer ranch property is bisected by thehighway. 5. The truck was originally used by the highway department for transporting road building and repair materials and appears similar to the trucks the department uses at the present time for thatpurpose. Rased upon these facts, the District Court concluded: (1) that the vehicle in question was a truck before Cremer Ranch obtained it, that ithad not beenmodified,and that it continued to be a truck as defined in § 61-1-107,MCA; (2) that the truckwas not apiece of specialmobile equipment as defined in § 61-1-104,MCA, andwas not exempt fromregistration and payment of fees under $ 61-3-431, MCA; (3)that the truck was not an implement of husbandry as defined in S 61-1-121, MCA, because it was not designed for agricultural purposes; (4) that if the truckwas used on the public roads ofMontana then it must be properly licensed and the required fees paid in accordance with 

### 5 61-10-201,MCA; and (5) that David Patton was guilty of driving an unlicensed truck upon which gross weight feeswere not paid on a public highway in violation of 

### 5 61-10-201,MCA. Mr. Pattonwas fined $90 plus
a surcharge of $10 for his offense. Did the District Court err in deciding the truckwas not exempt from vehicle licensing and registration requirements because it was not an implement ofhusbandry? The only issue appealed by the parties was whether the truck was an implement of husbandry and thus exempt from the licensing and registration requirements of § 61-10-201,MCA. Section 61-10-201, MCA, requires truck and truck tractors to pay an annual gross weight licensing fee based upon the weight of the tr~xck. Section 61-3-431(I), MCA, exemptsspecialmobile equipment frommotor vehicle registrationand fees. Section 61-3-431(4),MCA,provides: Publicly owned specialmobile equipment and implements of husbandry used exclusively by an owner in the conduct of his own farming operations are exempt from this section. After careful consideration, we affirm the District Court's conclusion that the vehicle did not fit within the "implementofhusbandry" definition found at § 61-1-121,MCA. Section 61-1-121,MCA,provides: "Implement of husbandry" means every vehicle which is designed for agricultural purposes and exclusively used by the owner thereof in the conduct of his agriculturaloperations. If the truck in question was not an implement of husbandry, then it is not exempt from G.V.W. licensing requirements. The District Court concluded the vehiclewas a truck and
was not exempt from registrationand payment of fees under S 61-3-431,MCA. Specifically,the court stated that the truck
was not an implement of husbandry as defined in 

### 5 61-1-121, MCA, because it was not designed for agricultural purposes. We agreewith that conclusion. The truck in questionwas originallyused by the Montana Department of Highways for transporting road building and repair materials. The truck was not designed to be used for agricultural purposes which is a requirement under 5 61-1-121, MCA, to qualify as an implementofhusbandry. We affirm the DistrictCourt.

We Concur:

# /
Justices