*1 Plainfield, Britton Harold R. Farms of Britton, d/b/a Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, Department State Transportation, Wisconsin Defendant-Appellant.† Appeals

Court of January No. 83-2152. Submitted on briefs 1985. February 25, Decided 1985. reported (Also 919.) in 365 N.W.2d For defendant-appellant the cause submitted was Jerry on the briefs of L. Hancock of Madison. plaintiff-respondent For the the cause was submitted Suhr, the brief of Boardman, Claude J. Covelli and Curry & Field of Madison. P.J., Gartzke, Dykman, Rudolph

Before T. J. Randa, Judge. Reserve Judge. RANDA, Depart

RUDOLPH T. Reserve Transportation ment appeals judg summary from a † review Petition denied. respondent Brit- Harold provided

ment that *2 a “farm truck” under sec. is ton’s “truck tractor” thereby qualifying for the (1981-82),1 (18), Stats. 341.26(3) (a), Stats.2 registration fee under sec. reduced judgment. of the reverse We a farmer undisputed. Britton is facts are material The semitrailer combination tractor and who owns a truck depart- purposes. farm primarily for which register application the truck to Britton’s ment denied 340.01(18), Stats. as “farm truck” under sec. tractor a Stats., 340.01, provides part: and (18) truck” motor truck owned “Farm means a trans- for the operated a farmer and used products on equipment portation supplies, and of farm farms, transporta- the farm or between the owner’s tion of farm his market, farm products from owner’s to the his farm. the to and ,supplies question we Interpretation of law of this a statute court’s determina- review without deference to the trial 668, Spearman 664, 342 2d DuPree, tion. 116 Wis. (Ct. App. 1983). N.W.2d 757 “motor a court a farm truck as The trial characterized operated by and then framed truck and a farmer” owned being a motor a truck tractor the issue as whether designed than to for no use and suitable other because the transport property. The reasoned that court truck” is “motor definition of “motor a transpor- designed, used maintained or 1 Subsequent (1981-82), amendments to sec. Stats. Statutory appeal. 223 this 1983 Act are not relevant to Wis. references to 1981-82 statutes. are part: Stats., provides 341.26, in relevant weight 12,000 (3) having gross (a) a For each farm truck having less, a pounds fee each farm a For $21. 12,000 weight pounds, one- gross a fee which is than more prescribed in s. motor fourth of the fee weight. having gross the same property,” 340.01(34), Stats.,3 tation of and Brit “truck tractor” is a motor vehicle used on ton’s transporting qualifies property, as a the vehicle truck,” “motor and a “farm therefore as truck.” reject contention, We which underlies reasoning, trial court’s tractor” is a sub- “truck category of “motor truck.” Section (73)4 sec. 340.01 indicate that “motor truck” and sub-categories larger a “truck are of the tractor” cate- gory (73) “motor vehicle.” Both subsections explicitly respective subjects refer their as “motor distinguished design vehicles” their use and into motor truck and truck tractor. Had the in- sub-category tended “truck tractor” to be of “motor *3 vehicle,” truck” of instead “motor words “motor employed 340.01(73), truck” would have been in sec. 340.01(73) states, however, Stats. Section truck designed tractor a motor pri- “means vehicle and used marily drawing (Emphasis added.) for other vehicles.” ignores 340.01(73). The trial court’s conclusion sec. may transport A truck prop- tractor indeed be used to erty, registering purposes but vehicles, the dis- tinction drawn

Stats., is property transported. based how that is This ignored by assigns is the trial court when it the same definition to truck tractor it as does to motor truck. Equating truck tractor with motor truck would render 340.01(73) sec. superfluous. “[Sjtatutes should be so 3 provides: 340.01(34), Stats., every “Motor designed, truck” means motor vehicle used property. maintained 4 provides: “Truck designed tractor” means a motor drawing other not vehicles and so constructed as to carry weight a than load other a of the of the vehicle and load so drawn.

229 word that no or clause shall be rendered sur construed (Footnote omitted.) plusage.” Cook v. Industrial 827, Comm., 240, 831 232, 31 142 N.W.2d Wis. 2d (1966). transported property

If a is in a vehicle drawn designed vehicle, then that other motor vehicle to draw a the motor vehicle “truck tractor.” is transports property, tractor but it does so draw- ing vehicles, other here a semitrailer. Britton’s designed other vehicles. tractor was and used to draw This truck tractor therefore fits the sec. sec. definition of “truck tractor” and is not a A “farm truck” “motor truck.” under special truck, a kind of motor “[w]here phrase specifically statute, in word or defined its

meaning statute, rule is as defined in the and no other applied.” construction need be Sullivan 641, Bank Grove, Bros. v. State Union 107 2dWis. (Ct. 545, 1982). App. Because N.W.2d Britton’s truck tractor not cannot be a motor 340.01(18). a farm truck under sec. judgment only part of the trial court’s

We reverse trial court’s truck tractor. which addressed Britton’s register his Britton was entitled determination that challenged on not farm trailer was semitrailer as appeal. Judgment part and re-

By affirmed Court. — *4 part. in versed cir- the affirm I would

DYKMAN, (dissenting). J. 340.01(18) meaning plain of secs. the court because cuit vehi- compels the result (34), Stats., and truck. a farm definition cle fits the part: 340.01, provides in or owned motor truck” means “Farm primarily by and used operated farmer and leased transportation the supplies, equipment farm and products on the owner’s farm or his between or her farms, owner’s farm to transportation products of farm from the market, transportation sup- and the plies to her his or farm. It undisputed that Britton ais farmer and uses the question vehicle in primarily for the products farm from only Britton’s farm to market. The question is whether the vehicle is a “motor truck.” legislature majority

The that because the has concludes question defined the as a “truck tractor” in vehicle sec. it cannot be truck. many 340.01(73) has in our which uses statutes nothing have to do with farmers fees. The or reduced following statutes, term appears “truck tractor” in the 70.112(5), 194.04(3) 218.01(6) (a), (lb), secs.: 218.01 (b)5, (15f), (67r), 341.05(12), 340.01 340.01 341.07(2), 341.11(2) (4), 341.15(1), 341.25(1) (e), and (g), (f), (ge) 341.26(3) (g), (d), (2), 341.305(2) (a) (b), (8) (a), (9) (a), 341.41 341.41 (2m), 346.14(2), 347.02(4), 347.16(2) 341.51 (a), 347.28(1), 347.29(1), 347.41, 347.45(1), 347.46(2), 348.02(5), 348.07(2) 348.185, (fm), 348.15(3) (b), 348.- 26(3), Stats. There is need to no consider (73) because it is irrelevant whether the vehicle is a exempted tractor. The has not by high registration, it tractors used from cost farmers legis- The farmers. exempted motor used has trucks 340.01(34): trucks motor lature has defined “ designed, used every means motor ‘Motor truck’ prop- transportation of maintained erty.” concededly a motor vehi- thing

The Britton prop- transportation of cle. It is used carrying it property erty. transports it Whether pulling trailer not relevant. in a its back or *5 description thing a motor truck. It is used for fits the purposes in sec. described 340.01(18). It is entitled to persons described 341.26(3) (a), registration fee under sec. Stats. reduced Plaintiff-Appellant, Wisconsin, State Harris, Defendant-Respondent. Charles C. Appeals

Court of June Submitted No. 83-2489-CR. briefs 1984. February 25, 1985. Decided 922.) (Also reported in 365 N.W.2d