Court Opinion

ID: 9809394
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:11:34.554769+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:27:58.516307
License: Public Domain

Clarkson, J.,
concurring in the result: The caption of the act, chapter 145, Public Laws 1931, is as follows: “An act to amend chapter two, Public Laws of one thousand nine hundred and twenty-one, and acts aihendatory thereof and additional thereto, relating to the State highway system and public roads of the State, and to provide for the maintenance thereof.”
Section 24, subsection 15, of said act, is as follows: “Any person, association, firm or corporation who shall buy in quantity of ten gallons or more at any one time any motor fuels as defined in this act for the purpose of, and the same is actually used in the operation of (1) farm *154tractor used principally for agricultural purposes, (2) motor boat used principally for fishing purposes (see amendment below), and/or (3) manufacturing processes in which such motor fuel is used as an ingredient, solvent or vehicle in the process, on which motor fuels the tax or taxes imposed by this act shall have been paid, shall be reimbursed and repaid the amount of such tax or taxes paid under this act upon the following conditions and in the following manner,” etc.
Said act was amended, chapter 304, part section 1, by inserting between the words “fishing purposes” and the word “and” in line 6 of above subsection, the following: “Mining machinery, consisting principally of air compressors, hoists, pumps, and excavators used exclusively for mining purposes.”
It is a matter of common knowledge that this amendment was passed to cover the type of mining done in the western part of the State, and to take care of the mining of feldspar, mica, etc. I do not think it was the intention of the General Assembly to cover digging gravel, which this controversy is about.