-
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
Honorable Joe G. Fender
County Attorney
Fisher County
Roby. Texas
Dear Sir: Opinion No. O-1497
Re: Proof required to con-
stitute a carrier a
"motor carrier" under
the terms of Article
911b. Vernon's Texas
Civil Statutes, 1925
We are in receipt of your letter of September 23, 1939, in
which you present the following facts:
"Defendant was arrested on a state highway between
the incorporated cities of Roby and Anson, Texas.
Proof was made in the Justice Court that defendant
was hauling sheep for hire with his truck without
a permit from the Railroad Commission as required by
Revised Civil Statutes 911b. The defendant contended
it was necessary that the State prove as part of its
case that the defendant actually drove through at
lease two incorporated cities with his load. Defend-
ant appealed from a judgment of conviction in the
Justice Court."
You desire a ruling upon the question of "whether or not it is
necessary for the State to prove that the defendant actually
went through two or more incorporated towns with his load," in
establishing that defendant unlawfully operated a motor carrier
without a permit or certificate of convenience and necessity.
The question presented in your letter of request is one which
has caused mush confusion and uncertainty in attempting to
apply the motor carrier act, Article 911b. Vernon's Texas Civil
L
.
.
Honorable Joe G. Fender, Page 2
Statutes, Article 1690b, Vernon's Texas Penal Code, being Acts
1929, 41st Legislature, p. 698, Ch. 314, as amended, Acts 1931,
42nd Legislature, p. 480, Ch. 277, Ii. B. No. 335. This depart-
ment, in its opinion Wo. 0-1592, in response to questions sub-
mitted by the Railroad Commission of Texas, has carefully
considered the proper construction of Section 1 (g) of this statute,
and attempted to make a comptehhnsive: analysis of the issues
controlling your question. A copy of said opinion is enclosed
herewith.
We concluded in that opinion that the Legislature in defining
a "motor carrier" intended to include within the terms of the Act
carriers for hire by motor vehicle over any public highway in
this state where in the course of the transportation the operator
travels between or through two or more incorporated cities, towns
or villages.
In the case you present, if the only evidence produced was that
defendant was arrested on a highway which was situated or located
between two incorporated towns without any reference to origin
or destination of the load or the seruice rendered we do not
think a violation of the Motor Carrier Act has been proved.
Based upon the reasoning set out in our Opinion No. O-1592,
enclosed herewith, we are of the opinion that in order to show
that a defendant operated a "motor carrier'* for hire as defined
in ?I. B. No. 335, Acts 42nd Legislature, (Acts, 911b, Vernon's
Texas Civil Statutes and 1690b Vernon's Texas Penal Code, 1925)
it is necessary to prove that the defendant, in the course of
his transportation, traveled from one incorporated town to another
with this load, however, it is not necessary to prove that munici-
pal corporations wbce the tennini of the transportation. We are
not to be understood as suggesting however, that an operator may
evade the regulations of a motor carrier for hire where his service
is in fact that of a "motor carrier", by merely driving around
or skirting the boundary lines of incorporated towns along his
route or some similar subterfuge.
The foregoing represents the considered opinion of this
Department.
-
Honorable Joe G. Fender, Qage 3
Yours very truly
ATTORNEY GBNBRAL OF TEXAS
s/ Cecil C. Cammack
By
Cecil C. Cammack
Assistant
CCC:BBB/cge
ENCLOSURB
APPROVED: Opinion Connnittee, By RWL, Chairman
APPROVED DEC. 16, 1939
a/ Gerald C. Mann
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS