Defendant was convicted in the Municipal Court of the City of Sioux Falls on a charge of operating a motor vehicle upon a public highway without having proper compensаtion plates displayed thereon and was sentenced to pay a fine of $100 and costs. Motion for new trial was overruled and defendant has appealed.
Appellant сhallenges the constitutionality of the statute requiring payment of compensation for thе unusual use of the public highways of the state by motor carriers as defined by statute. SDC Supp. 44.0422 first defines “motor carriers” in broad terms and then enumerates a number of exceptions. The prоvisions of this section in so far as they are necessary to a consideration of the question involved on this appeal are as follows: “The term ‘motor carrier’, when used in the succeeding sections of this chapter, means any person owning, controlling, operating, or managing any motor vehicle, trailer, or semitrailer for the transportation of persons or property over the public highways of this state, but shall not include corporations in so far as they own, con *302 trol, operate, or manage motor vehicles generаlly known as passenger cars of the type, style, or model commonly called roadster, touring car, coupe, brougham, sedan, and vehicles of the classes or types so named of not more than seven passenger seating capacity, when such vehicles are used for the transportation of persons only, for pleasure, or for the purpоses of the private business in which said operator or his employer is engaged”.
SDC Supp. 44.0425 reads in part as follows: “The said county treasurer shall also issue to said applicant оne compensation plate for each motor vehicle and one platе for each trailer or semitrailer, * * *. Such plate shall be securely fastened to the frоnt end of said motor vehicle, and on the rear end of such trailer or semitrailer, in a conspicuous place so as to be readily discernible”.
Appellant contends that thе statute confers upon corporate owners or operators of motor vehicles generally known as passenger cars with certain limitations privileges which no other owner or operator may enjoy; that the statute in this respect is unreasonably discriminаtory. Looking to the antecedent history of the statute, we find that the legislature exemptеd “corporations or persons” in so far as they owned or operated motor vehicles generally known as passenger cars. Ch. 139, Laws 1933, SDC 44.0422. It seems probable from an examination of other provisions of this statute requiring payment of compensation that the words “or persons” were omitted from Chapter 160, Laws 1943, amendatory of the provisions of SDC 44.0422, by inadvertеnce or through a clerical error. Decision in the instant case, however, turns upon thе question whether appellant can be heard to complain of the alleged invalidity.
The undisputed evidence is that appellant at the time of his arrest was transporting ovеr the highways of this state without the payment of compensation and the display of proper compensation plates a quantity of fish in a 1951 Ford pickup truck bearing South Dakotа license number 3-T-136. His destination was Chicago, Illinois, where he intended to sell the fish. Appellant is nоt a person belonging to the class allegedly discriminated against. He was not the owner оr operator of any any one of the type of motor
*303
vehicles enumerated in the first exception contained in the statute in question. This court in an early case, State v. Becker,
Judgment appealed from is affirmed.