Ron. Robert 0. Smith Opinion No. M- 247 

county Attorney 

Travis County Courthouse Re: Whether the Texas Motor 

Austin, Texae Carrier Act is violated 

when a company picks up 

and delivers metal belonging to its customers for 

galvanization under the 

Dear Mr. Smith: particular facts stated? 

Your letter, and brief, of June 12, 1968, requesting 

an opinion of this office presents the following question: 

"Does a company violate the Texas Motor 

Carrier Act when it picks up and delivers 

metal belonging to its customers for the 

purpose of galvanizing the same when the 

follwing facts are shwn to exist, to-wit: 

(I) the ccmpany does not have a certificate 

of convenience and necessity issued by the 

Texas Railroad Comdss~on; (2) the transportation equipment is wned by the colnpany 

providing the galvanizing process; (3) s 

charge is made by the canpany for the transportation of the metal,to and from the company 

plant for the galvanizing process; (4) the 

same charge is made for the galvanizing process whether the company or the custoarsr transrts the metal to and~from the COWMY plant; 

) the transportation:of such metal by the 

company requires the use of a highway between 

two or more incorporated cities in the State 

of Texas: (6) all of the transportation would 

be within the State of Texas." (E3nphasis added). 

No "motor carcierw shail operate any motor-propelled 

vehicle for the purpose of transportation or carriage of 

-1200- 
Ron. Robert 0. smith, page 2 (~-247) 

property for compensation or hire over any public highway 

in the state without having first obtained from the Railroad Commission a certificate of public convenience and 

necessity or a permit to do so. Seca. 2, 3, 5 & Sa(b), 

Art. 911b, V.C.S. 

"Motor carrier" is defined by Sec. l(g), Art. 911b 

as follows: 

"(g) The term 'motor carrier' means any 

person, firm, corporation, company, co-partnership, association or joint stock association, 

and their lessees, receivers, or trustees appointed by any court whatsoever Owning, controlling, managing, operating, or causing to 

be operated any motor-propelled vehicle used 

in transporting property for compensation or 

hire over any public highway'in this state, 

wze in the course of such transportation a 

highway between two or more incorporated cities, 

towns, or villages is traversed." (Emphasis 

added.) 

Applying the foregoing "motor carrier" definition to 

the facts submitted, we find that the controlling question 

confronting us is whether the company would be transporting 

property for compensation or hire. 

Since no additional charge is made by the company 

for picking up and delivering these materials and the 

price paid by the custcxner for the galvanizing service 

is the same whether the material is transported by the 

company or by other means , we agree with your conclusion 

that the company is not transporting property for compensation or hire nor otherwise operating as a *motor 

carrier" such as would be reaulated bv the Texas Motor 

Carrier Act. New Way Lumber Co. v. &ith, 128 Tex. 173, 

96 S.W.2d 282 m6); Attorney General's Opinion No. 

O-2795 (1940). 

SUMMARY 

A company picking up and delivering metal 

belonging to its customers for galvanization 

without additional charge is not transporting 

property for compensation or hire in violation 

of Article 91lb, Vernon's Civil Statute’s, under 

the particular facts stated. 

-1201- 
, 

lion. Robert 0. Smith, page 3 (M-247) 

truly yours, 

Prepared by Monroe Clayton 

Aaefst&nt Attorney General 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

Hawthorne Phillips, Chairman 

Kerns Taylor, Co-Chairman 

Alvin Zimnerrnan 

Bill Allen 

Lonny Zwiener 

Ralph Rash 

EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 

A. J. Carubbf, Jr. 

-1202-