OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
Aon. Btanford Papw, Deputy lhawniror
Oil an4 tie iiIrL*ion
lbilroab Ooma~reion or Trxar
hurt1a, Toxao
dyo Sror th8 date
ouch ord*r, inolurlw*
~0 ar Bue43~8 ara bit-
et* 0r the OXBOW, ~0 hm
at Juaiaid aonotructlon ai
r 9ra0ti00 8~90 pr00edur0, UPOP
resultoil in the aourta at t&0
lowiug Uoalobmo ad oonelue%on8.
tmug t&m* *irem* E epeoWi*d thy 9r
that the day 0s tbo tntrp as the or-
dew emuld be rxelwlrd, RM! the last dry, Or in the WOB-
aat @am, the 16tR day vttlah is aerrtlaned in the WUer,
sbauld 'be 1aoluUoU 1~ the aomputatlon af tha dq3. Fur-
tbor, thet In oamgutiug the tiar within vhieh aa ad ir
Bon. Lltaarord Poyno, pago 2
requlrod to be porforemd, uhoa said time 18 or euoh a prolong8d
?erZod that weeks are lncludod in the tlms allovod vlthln wnloh
an not I0 required to be porforrod, IntenenIng Buadaye or hol-
idays are Incrludod In tlte oompatatlon. Again, wlaoro a etrtuto
of tho Stetm raquiroe that an not bo dnno wlthln a oerth doeig-
nated number of Bays, the faot that the laet day Is a Sundq or
othor holidw, will not lxoludo it fron tho aomputatlon, unleee the
stetuto Iteolf lo .provldoe. (Soo Pattoreon v. Tarroll, 05 Tex. 509;
HazlowOOd V. Roger, 95 Pax. 295; Whhito v. Doyle, 220 5. Y. 161;
Minor v. wCDosmld,-104 ZEX. 461~ Hanover Firs lne. 00. v. SoRrader,
89 Tox. 35; Olty OS Da1100 v. Springor, 8 8. W. (2a) 722; Long v.
Martin, 112 Tox. 365.
ti foregoing JudI8Ial proaounoombntm, hovovor, whllo
prooerlr to bo aoneidered am poreuaslro, are not noooreerlly bind-
ing upoa tho Rallr@d GomaIrelon in lnterprstlng it8 ovn ml08 of
prooeduro.
The RaIlroad Commieelon of Texae, under Ite logielatlro
grant povmr, ir not &inlf ohorboa vlth th0 duty of lnforoiag
0r
the sons#Pratlon lava, but Is likmuieo tho rule-uklly: body am
to proeoodi~e boforo It. T’no oourte hare hold that when tRo
OorirrIan aotn In lte ~l.ogiels.tIrow ea?aoItP, Ite, rul08 &avO
the same for08 aad offeot a m a ltrtute. Furthor, ttto lhaP.pmO
hurt of the btate ot Texac Ime he14 that tho Corleelon not
only hae the paver to promulgate Ita ruloc, but tbat it har the
0daItIoaal pawor and attthorIty or Intofgretlng #am, tRat euoh
offlolal lnterprctatlon of a rule GO made by tho Oomm%eeion be-
OOPOOP qart nr tho rule lteolr, and that the rule 18 rusoaptlblo
0r no other lnterpretatton. TW UoamIreiOn Is the in#trUWntalItV
of the 5tat6, oxerolelng delegate0 ~cg~elativo peuare, and it8
ruler are giron the samo foroe am like enaotmonts Of tR0 k lela-
tore. BOO 8~ll Oil CO. T. .%llntau ~0!#i#iIecIOA, M g. w. (w f 509,
at page (IFOr
*In the oaae or wart Toxar Qomprees *
Warehowe Co. Y. Panhandle k 8anta Fe Ry.Co.
(Tex. Corn. App.) 16 8. W. (2d) 568, It I#
held that Interpratatione plaeod by tho Rail-
maa Coemirclan on ader or rule 0r the omm-
mIs@Ion bsaome a p%rt of tho rule (zd the rule
Ia suoooptible of no otbor IntsrWotetfon.
*In the OR80 of Texarkana ck Ft. 581th w.
co. v. HoumtonQasi8 Fuel Co., 121 Tex. 5c4,
51 8. Y. (2d) 2&S, 287, It Ia hrld that, ‘vhoro
the oouioelon ham offIoIallf Iatorwetea It8
own ruloe mnd rata ortlmra, OUQ~ IntorpMtatiOn
lhould bo aoneldorod a Dart thoroOf.‘*
Hon. 6tanfow.l
Payne, page S
It 18 the opinion of thlr a~p~*~~nt
that the Railroad Comu4arionot Toxaa, having
promulgatedthe order providing for thr filing of
a motion for rahl:arlng,and speolfylaga period
of time wlthln whlah mme should be filed, I8 the
rim AUthOrity remted wlth the lnt8rprstatioa
or euoh rulr, and thst on00 having int8rPrete4
the rule, 8emo 28 susa8ptlble of no other Inter- "~'
pretation, and thr Interpr828tloa given the IdO
by the Coawlr8ionbeooner a part of the rule it-
SSir, and th82’8aft8l’ ttl8 ~O~iS81Otl, 18 If811 88
all other partle8, 18 bound by 8uoh orrioia
lnt8rpretatioa.
Trurtlng that we have 8ati8raetorily
anirr8nb your inquiry, we are,
Your8 very truly
ATmum OtslLFutor TEXAB
BY 3
A8818tatlt
AI'PROVYEDJAN
8, 1941