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 bitet* 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 ordew emuld be rxelwlrd, RM! the last dry, Or in the WOBaat @am, the 16tR day vttlah is aerrtlaned in the WUer, 

sbauld 'be 1aoluUoU 1~ the aomputatlon af tha dq3. Furtbor, 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 holidays are Incrludod In tlte oompatatlon. Again, wlaoro a etrtuto 

of tho Stetm raquiroe that an not bo dnno wlthln a oerth doeignated number of Bays, the faot that the laet day Is a Sundq or 

othor holidw, will not l xoludo it fron tho aomputatlon, unleee the 

stetuto Iteolf l o .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 binding upoa tho Rallr@d GomaIrelon in lnterprstlng it8 ovn ml08 of 

prooeduro. 

The RaIlroad Commieelon of Texae, under Ite logielatlro 

grant 0r povmr, ir not &inlf ohorboa vlth th0 duty of l nforoiag 

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 l trtute. 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 beOOPOO P 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 lelatore. 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 Railmaa Coemirclan on ader or rule 0r the ommmIs@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. Houmton Qasi 8 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 

l hould bo aoneldorod a Dart thoroOf.‘* 
Hon. 6tanfow.l Payne, page S 

It 18 the opinion of thlr a~p~*~~nt 

that the Railroad Comu4arion ot Toxaa, having 

promulgated the order providing for thr filing of 

a motion for rahl:arlng, and speolfylag a 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 Coawlr8ion beooner a part of the rule itSSir, 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 OtslLFut or TEXAB 

BY 3 

A8818tatlt 

AI'PROVYEDJAN 8, 1941