- 

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 constitute 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. Defendant 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 department, in its opinion Wo. 0-1592, in response to questions submitted 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 municipal 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