September 18, 1951 

Hon. Homer Garrison, Jr., Director 

Texas Department of Public Safety 

Camp Mabry 

Austin, Texas Opinion No. V-1285 

Re: Interpretation of Senate BiII 

57. Acts 52nd Leg., R.S. 

Dear Sir: 

1951, relating to the gross’ 

weight of commercial vehicles. 

Your request for an opinion reads in part as follows: 

“Senate Bill 57, Acts 52nd Legislature, Regular 

Session, 1951, relating to the gross weight of commercial motor vehicles provides that no axle shall carry a 

load in excess of 18,000 pounds. The Act defines an axle 

load as ‘the total load transmitted to the road by all 

wheels whose centers may be included between two parallel tFkrXv’arsevertics1 Plkie~s,.fonty ihohes apart, exe. - 

tending across the full width of the vehicle.’ The Act 

then provides a table limiting the maximum load in 

pounds carried on any group of axles and this table is 

based upon the distance in feet between the extremes 

~of any group of axles. 

“It is further provided in the Act that the total 

gross weight concentrated on the highway surface from 

any tandem axle group shall not exceed 32,000 pounds 

for each such tandem axle group and then proceeds to 

define a tandem axle group to be ‘two or more axles 

spaced forty inches or more apart from center to center having at least one common point of weight suspension.’ 

“In connection with the above Act we desire your 

opinion on the following questions: 
Hon. Homer Garrison, Jr., page 2 (V-1285) 

“1. Under Senate Bill 57, what would be the maximum gross weight allowed a combination of vehicles consisting of a single driving axle truck-tractor and tandem 

axle semi-trailer wherein it is thirty-seven feet from the 

front truck axle (Axle “A”) to the extreme axle (Axle “D”) 

of the tandem axle group (Axles ‘C” and “D”), and is 

twenty feet from the rear truck-tractor driving axle (Axle 

“B”) to the extreme axle of the tandem axle group (Axle 

*D”). The axles of the tandem axle group (Axles “C” and 

“D”) on the frailer are spaced four feet apart.. 

“2. What.is the legal maximum weight allowance for 

semi-trailer axles spaced four feet apart with no common 

point of weight suspension. 

“3. What is the maximum legal gross weight allowed under Senate Bill 57 for a tandem truck used to 

transport ready mixed cement wherein the distance in 

feet between the extreme axles is twelve feet. 

‘4. What is the legal maximum gross weight allowed 

under Senate Bill 57 on a group of axles formed on a trucktract& by the use of a ‘jeep assembly.‘” 

Article 827a. Section 5. Vernon’s Penal Code. as amended 

by Senate Bill 57. Acts 52nd Leg., 1951. ch. 146. p. 248, provides in 

part as follows: 

“Section 5. Except as otherwise provided by law, 

no commercial motor vehicle, truck-tractor, trailer or 

semi-trailer, nor combination of such vehicles, shall be 

operated over, on, or upon the public highways outside 

the limits of an incorporated city or town, where the total, weight on a s$ngle axle or any group of axles exceeds 

the weight limitations adopted April 1, 1846. by the “American Association of State Highway Officials,” set forth below in subsections (a) and (b): 

“(a) Permissible Loads -- No axle shall carry a 

load in excess of eighteen thousand (18,000) pounds. 

a 

. . . 

“(b) No group of axles shall carry a load in pounds 

in excess of the ,value given in the following table corres- 
. . 

Hon. Homer Garrison, Jr., page 3 (V-1285) 

ponding to the. distance in feet between the extreme axles 

of the group, measured longitudinally to the nearest foot: 

“Distance in feet 

between the extremes of any 

group of axles 

Maximum load in 

pounds carried on 

any group of axles 

4 

2 

7 

9” 

10 

11 

i2 

13 

14 

:z 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

z 

z 

26 

27 

2”; 1 

30 

31 

32 

33 

:; 

36 

37 

:; 

40 

41 

32,000 

32,000 

32,000 

32,000 

32.610 

33,580 

34.550 

35.510 

36,470 

37.420 

38.360 

39,300 

40,230 

41,160 

42.080 

42,990 

43.900 

44,800 

45,700 

46.590 

47,470 

48.350 

49,220 

50,090 

50,950 

51,800 

52,650 

y”o 

55: 160 

55,980 

56,800 

57,610 

58,420 

58,420 

58.420 

58,420 

58.420 
Hon. Homer Garrison. Jr.. page 4 (V-1285) 

“The weights set forth in column two of the above 

table shall constitute the maximum permissible gross 

weight for any such vehicle or combination of such vehicles.” 

The act does not define ‘“group of axles” or “axles of the 

group.” We must therefore first ascertain what constitutes the 

“group of axles” to be used in determining the maximum gross 

weight allowed for any motor vehicle or combination of vehicles 

traversing the highways of this State outside the corporate limits 

of any incorporated city or town. 

In order that our discussion of the question may be 

more clearly understood, we have reproduced below a photograph 

of the combination of motor vehicles accompanying the request. 

It is contended by some interested parties that by the 

use of the language “no group of axles shall carry a load in excess 

of the value given in the . . . table corresponding to the distance in 

feet between the extreme axles of the group” the Legislature intended in the above example to group the axles as follows: “A” to 
Hon. Homer Garrison, Jr., page 5 (V-1285) 

“B”, “A” to “D”, “B” to “D”, and “C” to “D”. Thus, it is said that 

the weights given in the table for the corresponding distances in feet 

between each of these axle groups is the maximum gross weight permissible on any such axle group. In other words, applying the distances given above to the table, the total gross weight permissible 

on the axle group “B” to “D” would be 43,900 pounds, and on the axle 

group “A” to “D ” it would be 58,420 pounds. Under this theory, an 

operator of a motor vehicle or combination of motor vehicles would 

be in violation of the gross load limit if the gross weight on any one 

group of axles was in excess of that shown by the table. 

There is authority for this contention. The Supreme Court 

of Iowa in the recent case of State v. Balsley, 48 N.W.2d 287 (Iowa 

Sup. June 5, 1951) held under the Iowa act’ providing for “distance in 

feet between the extremes of any group of axles or the extreme axles 

of the vehicle or combination” that axles “B”, “C”, and “D” together 

constitute a group of axles and that “consideration can and must be 

given to the distance between the extreme axles of this particular 

group and the weight that was on them.” The Attorney 

Nebraska reached a like result in an opinion dated 

General9 

May 13, 1949. 

On the other hand, the Attorney General of vming, construing a statute similar to those in Iowa and Nebraska, in an opinion dated July 22, 1950, concluded that the meaning intended by the 

Legislature in using the terms “axles of the group” and “group of 

axles” was that “all axles under a vehicle should be considered as 

a group.” It was further said that the distance to be measured in 

l/ The Iowa act, Sec. 321.463, Iowa Code (1950), provides: “No 

grouiiof axles of any vehicle, or any combination of vehicles, shall 

carry-a load in pounds in excess of the value given in the . , . table 

corresponding to the distance in feet between the extreme axles of 

the group,measured longitudinally to the nearestfoot.” 

2/ The Nebraska act, Section~39-722. Neb. Rev. Stat. (Supp. 

1949r provides: “No group of axles shall carry a load in pounds in 

excess-of the maximum loads given in the . . . table corresponding 

to the distance in feet between the extreme axles of the .group. measured longitudinally to the nearest foot.” 

3/ The Wyoming act, Ch. 87, Wyo. Laws. 1949. provides ” . . . 

no vehicle or combination of vehicles shall be operated on the highways where the total gross weight, with load, exceeds that given by 

the . . . table, corresponding to the distance in feet between the extreme axles of the group measured longitudinally to the nearest 

foot.* 
. . 

Hon. Homer Garrison, Jr.., page 6 (V-1285) 

order properly to apply the table or formula4 was “the distance 

from the extreme front axle of the vehicle to the extreme rear 

axle of the vehicle without regard to the number of axles that 

mightintervene between such front and rear axle.” 

Thus, there has been a division of opinion as to the construction to be placed upon the term “group of axles” even though 

the statutes construed are similar, each being modeled in part on 

the uniform act suggested by the American Association of State 

Highway Officials, as is Senate Bill 57. However, in determining 

the construction’to be placed upon the Texas act it is necessary 

to consider une very important difference between Senate Bill 57 

and the statutes of the other States. Immediately following the 

statutory weight formula it is provided: 

“The weights set forth in column two of the above 

table shall constitute the maximum permissible gross 

we> - 

hicles. “-I (J&mphasis added throughout.) 

. The above provision must be construed in connection with 

that portion of the act immediately preceding the statutory weight 

formula wherein it is provided: 

“No group of axles shall carry a load in pounds 

in excess gf the value given in the followmg table corresponding to the distance in feet between the extreme 

axles of the group, measured longihidmally to the nearest foot.” 

It is thus to be observed that this portion of the act deals 

with a “load in pounds” in relation to a “group of axles,” while that 

portion of the actimmediatelyfollowing the weight formula designates the.weights &tf’nrtb in the table as the “maximum . . . gross 

weight” for the “vehicle or combination of . . . vehicles.” sunless 

the second provision is explanatory of the meaning which the Legislature intended to attach to the first provision, the two provisions 

4/ The statutory tables of distances and weights in Iowa, Nebra&a, Wyoming. and Texas are the same. 

5/ This provision is neither included in the uniform act suggest&d by the American Association of State Highway Officials nor 

the acts of the several States whose acts have been modeled after 

the suggested uniform act. 
, . 

Hon. Homer Garrison, Jr., page 7 (V-1285) 

prescribe conflicting methods for determining maximum permissible gross load. In keeping with the rule of statutory construction that all parts of a statute will be harmonized, if possible, so 

as to.give effect to every provision in the act, we think it is obvious 

that the Legislature, by the insertion of the provision relating to the 

maximum gross weight for a vehicle or combination of vehicles, intended that all axles under a vehicle or combinationof vehicles be 

considered as, the “group” without regard to intervening axles. Otherwise, we must attribute to the Legislature the doing of a meaningless 

and useless thing-in expressly providing in the act that the weights 

given in the table should constitute the maximum permissible gross 

weight for a vehicle. This we should not do. Southwestern Gas & 

Electric Co. v. State, 190 S.W.Zd 132 (Tex. Civ. App. 1945), atfirmed 

145 Tex. 24, 193 S . W . 2 d 675 (1946). 

But assuming that this is not the proper construction to be 

given this last provision and further assuming that the arrangement 

of axles in the above example results in more than one group of axles, 6 

then obviously the two paragraphs are in conflict and we must therefore 

determine which of the two provisions should prevail. If the provision 

which deals with “group of axles ” is to prevail, then undoubtedly the 

r,ule announced by the Iowa Supreme Court in State v. Balsley, supra, 

should be applied. On the other hand, if the provision of the actrelatin&to permissible weights for “vehicles” and “combination of vehicles” 

is controlling, then the total permissible gross weight for the vehicle 

or combination of vehicles would be determined by the figure set out 

in the table corresponding to the distance from the extreme front axle 

to the extreme rear axle without regard to intervening axles. 

In considering conflicting provisions in a statute, the primary 

object is, to ascertain the legislative intent. In accordance with the 

principle that the last expression of the legislative will is the law, the 

prevailing view is that, in case of conflicting provisions in the same act, 

the last provision in order of arrangement prevails. United States v. 

Updike, 25 F.2d 746 (D. Neb. 1928), affirmed 281 U.S. mUI; tireat 

wrn Rye. v. United States, 155 Fkd. 945 (C.C.A. 8th 1907). afffi6/ Suchgrouping of axles accords with the interpretation which 

the Highway Research Board has placed on~that part of the act providing that “no group of axles shall carry a load in pounds in excess of 

the value given in the . . . table:” See Bulletin No. 26, Highway Research Board, Washington, D.C., July 1950, p. 11. See also, “Policy 

Concerning Maximum Dimensions, Weights and Speeds of Motor Vehicles” adopted by American Association of State Highway Gfficials on 

April 1. 1946. 
. . 

Hon. Homer Garrison, Jr., page 8 (V-1285) 

208 U.S. 452 (1908); State v. Burchfield Bros., 211 Ala. 30, 99 So. 198 

(1924); Spreckels v. Graham, 194 C 1 516 228 Pac. 1040 (1924); Lamar 

v. Allen;T(TS Ga.m3 S . E . 958 (l”s<S)* Woodring v. McCaslin, n. 

I34 104 N.E. 759 (19i4); People ex rel. Barnes v. Warden of \R 

127’Misc. 224, 215 N.Y.S.v925)* Stat 

orkhouse, 

Ohio, 105 Ohio St. 103, 136 N.E. 894 (T9 

e v. Industrial tommission of 

j P acker v. Sunbury & E R 

m. 211 (1852); 59 C.J. 999, Statutes, Se:. 596. 

. Y*r 

Texas has followed the above rule. Parshall v. State, 62 

Tex. Grim. 177, 138 S.W. 759, 767 (1911); Stevens V. State, ?B-%x. Crim. 

565, 159 S.W. ‘05 (1913), In the Stevens case, -theaid: 

” 0 . . Where there is [a] . , . conflict between different sections or parts of the same statute, the last 

words stand . . .; that is, the part of a statute later in 

position in the same act or section is deemed later in 

time and prevails over repugnant’parts occurring before, 

though enacted and to take effect at the same time. . . . 

‘W 

Applying the above rules of construction to the question under consideration, it follows that controlling effect must be given to 

the provisions of the act wherein it is provided that the weights set 

forth in the table “shall constitute the maximum permissible gross 

weight for any such vehicle or combination of such vehicles.” 

It follows from the above that the distance to be measured in 

order properly’to appiy the statutory table in our example is from the 

extreme front axle (Axle “A”) to the rear semi-trailer tandem axle _ 

(Axle “D”). This construction accords with the declared legislative 

intent to raise the permissible gross weight of commercial motor vehicles r combinations thereof, including the load thereon, from 48,000 

pounds s to 58,420 pounds.8 To hold otherwise would in many instances 

actually thwart such legislative intent. 

Moreover, the construction we have placed on the act is in 

accord with the departmenta interpretation placed thdreon by the 

Texas Highway Department. 4 

7/ Acts 49th Leg., 1945, ch. 162. p. 218. 

g/ See:.$he title and Section 2 of Senate Bill 57. Acts 52nd Leg., 

1951,Th. 146. p. 248. 

9/ The instructions for registration purposes issued by the Texas 

Highly Department. Motor Vehicle Division, interpret the “distance 

in feetbetween the extremes of any group of axles” to mean from the 

extreme front axle of the vehicle to the extreme rear axle of the vehicle or combination. 
Hon. Homer Garrison, Jr., page .9. :. (V-1285) , 

What we have said above with reference to the maximum 

permissible gross weight of a vehicle or combination of vehicles 

under the statutory table of weights and distances is subject to certain specific restrictions and limitations contained in the act. In 

the first place, it is expressly provided that “no axle shall carry a 

load in excess of eighteen thousand (18,000) pounds.” Secondly, no 

vehicle using high-pressure tires shall have a greater weight “than 

six hundred (600) pounds per inch width of tire upon any wheel concentrated upon the surface of the highway,“’ and no vehicle using lowpressure tires shall have a greater weight “than six hundred and 

fifty (650) pounds per inch width of tire upon any wheel concentrated 

upon the surface of the highway.” Thirdly, no wheel shall carry a 

load in excess of eight thousand (8,000) pounds on high-pressure 

tires and nine thousand (9,000) pounds on low-pressure tires. Fourthly, “the total groes weight concentrated on the highway surface from 

zn:sndeem axle group shall not exceed thirty-two thousand (32,000) 

. A tandem wle group is defined “to be two or more axles 

spaced forty (40) inches or more apart from center to center having 

at least one common point of weight suspension,” 

From the above we answer your first question as follows: 

In measuring the distance between the “extramen of any group of 

axles” in order to apply the rtatutory table of weights it is proper 

to measure from the extreme front axle of the vehicle to the extreme rear axle of the vehicle or combination of vehicles without 

regard to the number of axles that might intervene between such 

front and rear axle. Thus, a combination of vehicles eonsMing of 

a truck-tractor and tandem axle semi-trailer wherein it is thirtyseven (37) feet from the front truck axle (Axle *A”) to the extreme 

rear axle of the tandem axle group (Axle “D”) is permitted to have 

a maximum gram weight of 58,420 pounds, subject to the limitationr snd rcrtrictionr provided for in the act with respect to high 

and low pressure tires, dngle axle loads, wheel loads, and tandem 

urle loads. 

By your second question you inquire as to the maximum 

weight allowance for two semi-trailer axles rpaced four feet apart 

with no common point of weight rurpenrion. Ao the two axles do 

not have a common point of weight ruspenaion, they cannot come 

within the definition of a tandem axle group. Such axles are maparab and apart one from the other, and therefore come within that 

provision of the act wherein it is provided that *no axle shall carry 

a load in excess of eighteen thousand (18,000) pounds.* You are 

therefore advised that each such semi-trailer axle may carry a 

load not to axceed eighteen thousand (18,000) pounds, subject to tht 

limitations and restrictions with respect to low pressure tire8 and 

wheel loads. 
* ,. . 

Hon. Homer Garrison, Jr., page 10 (V-1285) 

In your third question you present for determination the 

maximum gross weight allowed for a ~~d~~ truck used to transport 

ready mixed concrete wherein the diShCS between the extreme 

axles is twelve (12) feet. We as6ume that the type’of truck inquired 

about is used exclusively to tranoport ma+-mix concrete. 

Under the statutory table of distances and weights the 

maximum permissible I(* --SS _.weight for any type of motor vehicle 

operated over ~tl# public highways olrUo-- ---+cide the’ corporate limits of 

any incorporated city or town wherein it is twelve (12) feet between 

the extremes of its axles is 36,470 pounds. It is true that the act 

provides that-‘yehicles used exclusively to tranoport rea 

cement for the next two (2) years after the effective date lVz%is 

act may be operated with a ,tandem axle load of thirty-six thousand 

(36,000) pounds” if the owner complies with certain conditions.11 

This is an exception to the 32,000 pound limit an other tandem 

axle groups. It in no way extends the maximum permissible gross 

weight allowed a vehicle under the table of distances and weights. 

All the proviso does is to allow an increase in the permissible 

weight on the tandem axle group of a vehicle used exclusively to 

transport ready-mix concrete, and it does no-y or otherwise 

change the weight6 set out in the statutory table. 

your fourth6question relates to the use of a “jeep assembly” in connection with an ordinary truck-tractor. As explained by 

you, a ‘jeep,assembly” is a piece of equipment consisting of an axle, 

dual tires, and frame assembly which is connected to the truck-tractor 

by the use of a king pin attached to the ‘fifth wheel.” Thus connected, 

it has the effect of making a tandem truck-tractor out of what was 

previously a single rear axle truck-tractor. We assume from the 

descriptiontbat when the “jeep assembly” is connected to the fifth 

wheel of the truck-tractor that it results in the two axles being spaced 

forty (40) inches or more apart from canter to center, and is so connected as to give at least Yone common point .of weight,suspension.” 

Based upon this assumption, the use of the jeep assembly ~results in 

forming a “tandem axle group.” and by the express provisions of the 

act the total gross weight concentrated on the highway surface from 

“any tandem axle group” shall not exceed thirty-two thousand (32,000) 

pounds. 

lO/ Senate Bill 57, Actr~52nd L,eg.,;l951, ch. 146, p. 248, became 

effecFve September 7,~ 1951. 

11/ The owner of such vehicle must first file with the State HighwayDepartment a surety~bond in the sum of $lO,OOO.OO for eachvehicle operated. 
. I 

Hon. Homer Garrison, Jr., page 11 (V-1285) 

SUMMARY 

Under S.B. 57, Acts 52nd Leg., 1951, ch. 146. p. 248 

(Art. 827a. Sec. 5, V.P.C.), the distance to be measured in 

applying the table of distances and weights in order to arrive &the maximum permissible gross weight of a vehicle 

or combination of vehicles is from the extreme front axle 

of the vehicle to the extreme rear axle of the vehicle or 

combination without regard to intervening axles. The maximum permissible gross weight allowed under the table of 

weights is subject to the restrictions contained in the act 

with respect to single axle loads, tandem axle loads, single 

wheel loads, and loads transmitted to the highway surface 

through use of high and low pressure tires. 

The provision allowing a tandem axle load of 36,000 

pounds for vehicles used exclusively to transport readymix concrete for two years after the effective date of Senate Bill 57 merely increases from 32,000 pounds to 36,000 

pounds the permis~sible tandem axle load for such vehicles, 

but does not qualify or otherwise change the maximum 

gross weight prescribed for these vehicles in the statutory 

table. 

The total gross weight authorized to be concentrated 

on ~-the highway surface by any one tandem axle group 

formed by the use of a “jeep assembly” is 32,000 pounds. 

Yours very,truly.. 

PRICE DANIEL 

Attorney General 

APPROVED: 

Everett Hutchinson 

‘Executive Assistant 

Price Daniel 

Attorney General 

B-A. vCharles D. Mathews 

First Assistant 

CDM:b