October 23, 1958 

Hon. Jack Fields 

County Attorney 

Calhoun county 

Port Lavaca, Texas 

Dear Mr.l'Fields: 

Opinion No. !GJ 515 

Re: Whether Union Carbide Chemical 

Company Mctor vehicles are required to be registered under 

Article 6675a-2 of the Revised 

C':,vil Statutes cf Texas and 

Arkicle EOir of the Penal Code 

when such veticles traverse 

0rGy seven- tenths of a mile 

ever a State highway in the 

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%.ioa with 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 seventenths of a mile. 

"Union Carbide owns land altos; in 

equal portions on each side of the iiighway 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 employees, 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 

send must be construed most favorable to the owner of c:ne vehicle". 

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 construed 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 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

L. P. Lollar, Chairman 

Leon Pesek 

Clyde Kennelly 

RFVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

BY: Morgan Nesbitt 

-"John C. Phillips 

Assistant