THX ,ATlL-OHNEY GENERAL
OF TEXAS
HonorableWalton D. Bood
La? EnforcementOfficer&
Chief of Inspectors
RailroadCommissionof Texas
Austin,Texas
Dear sir:
opiniongo. 04221
Re: Is the~.proposed
Lease to be used
by truckersin the Lower.BloGrande
Valley an attemptto evade the Motor
Cerrler IawP
This will acknowledgereceiptof your requestmade~toUI)Vhl@,is as follows:
"A copy qf s proposedlease to be used by thetruckers'inthe Lower Rio
GrandeValley'inthe transportation of cottonto variouspoints tbrougbout
the Valley and/or ihe Port of Brownsvillein Caraaron
Countg;Texas, Is
attachedhereto.
've respactfullyrequestan opinionon t&is at V0ur earliestconvenience;
however,inour judgmentthis icronly an; attemptto evade the Motor
CarrierLaw."
In reply thereto,this lied@ advise thata contractpractically the same,
whit oertainexceptions,whi&are immaterialfor the purpose6f.thisopinion,
was involved in the case of Anderson-Clayton
Companyv. The State,62S. W. (2d)
X7, and 82 S. W. (26) 941.
71: .I
'he first opinionin the casea above mentimed, the Commissionof Appeals
vas asked in the third queetionthere submitted,the folloWin&:
"3. Were the &ose-petitloner,soperatingthe lease trucksfor oompanaation
or hire under provisionaof Chapter27'7,Acts of the &nd Legislature,
known as House Bill ,335?”
TO the questionpropoundedthe Court made thle directreply:
'She Third question .cert;ified
presentsa questionof fact and not of
law." (Underscoringouris)
31. Walton D. Hood, Page 2 O-1221
P*- -, i~skT!e.~“.~
i?..C. here submittedis subject,under proper pleadings,to an
of what is actuallytaktig piece.
expl;iratlou
Cor~seqzut.ly
tke trial court or the jury hearing:.thefacts provenwould
3 .'--rrtiae
,..e
UC_- the issue,after tb.eevidencehas been heard.
'kexfore, it is impossible,for this Department, withoutknowingthe facts,
co ;zss '~jonthe question8s to whetherthe contractsubmittedis an nttemp?
,:o evade the Motor Carrierlaw or not.
Yours very truly,
AT.COm fXKEXAL~CFTExAS
s/ Gee. S. Eerry
BY
Geo. S . Berry
Assistant