OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
flormruble ,i. L. '&¶~&a
County kttorney, Vlotorl6 Couinty
sflatorla, TexM
46
47
49
Honorable W. I..lNwar4~. Viotorla - w&m 5,
oomwdltlte as oannot be reasonably dismertlzled, eta.. . .I
Further dieou~leion ol’ the lengths of vehioles under ~rtlole
827a , Seotione 2 and 3, are found in this Department*s Opinion No.
o-1280. The question therein waked ua8t Doss B speoial permit,
whloh allows a length of mere than 43 feet, Imply the right of a
oarrler to haul a load wmwlll extend more than 3 feel) In front
and more than 4 temn the rear of his v-e. The Opinion quot-
e& 9x2, Art. 327a, in full, and alro paragraph (0) or SIotion 3,
of said Artiolo. It then oontinuedr
*As you hats indioaired in the quoted portion or
your letter, Sea. 2, of Art. 827a make8 protie*
Ion ior the leeuanoe of ,apeoial permit6 for the
operation war 8ta*e highway6 of over*lto equfp-
men%, In the erent suoh equi~nt is~neoresary
ior the iiransporta8ion 0r , oversi54
ot be reasoq-
*Tou will note that paragraph (d), Sea. 3, Art.
827a provides that *no oehiole or oombinatloa ot
vehloler ehall oarrg a load whioh extends more
than S fee* beyond the front thereof, nor,-
ae hereinbefore provided, more than 4 feet rseyo
he rear theN)of.w
wconetruing together all of the abore uoted atatu-
tsry provieions, we rind that the LegP8latuFe pro-
hiblted any vehfole or acmnblnation of vehfoles tram
oarrying ca load whioh extended more than 3 feet be-
yona the rsont or the vehlole o???imbination, and
did not provide for any exoeption to this require-
ment; b t the wording or paragraph fd), Sec. 3, Art.
827a makte it equally olaar that the Legislature did
antloipate that an overlength load ml&t extend Ip8~%
than 4 feet beyond the rear of the oonveying VehlOle
or .co@bination of rehloles."
- - tiiall4
reet flsm tbma
3’ 0
MmhYe