THE A~~~OKNEY GENEKAI, 

OP TEXAS 

Honorable Jos. h. Dart 

County Attorney 

Kendall County 

Boerne, Texas 

Dear 8ir: Opinion NO. o-3964 

Re: Nbcessity for certificate 

or permit for operation as 

a motor carrier, ~Construc- 

;ir of Article qllb, V.T. 

. . _ 

We are In receipt of your-recent 'request for an opinion in which you submit the following questions: 

"The highway between San Antonio and:.Kerrville 

is Intersected by first, Leon Sprin:s, L. unicccrporated town, then by Boerne, an Incorporated city, 

then by Comfort, an unincorporated town, finally 

winding up in Kerrvllle, an incorporated city. In 

ycur opinion would the fact that the unincorporated towns lie between two or more incorporated cities, 

towns and~vlllages' to the extent that the carrier 

could operate anywhere along this route just SC 

long as he kept an unincorporated town between himself and one of the Incorporated cities, or is the 

fact that the unincorporated towns lie between the 

incorporated cities merely incidental and has no 

besring on the ,stotus of the highway 8s between two 

or more incorvcratsd cities, towns or villages?" 

"Paragraph (h)'of Art. qllb, R.C.S., reads: 

'The term "contract carrier" means any motor carrier PS hereinabo-e defined transporting property 

for compensation or hire ever any highway in this 

State other than as a common carrier.' 
. . . 

Honorable Joa. B. Dart, page 2 O-3964 

“I would take this varagraph to mean a motor 

carrier opernting over no.&ixed route and with no 

fixed schedule and not holding himself out as a 

carrier for the general public but taking certain 

jobs cf hauling here and there as opportunity offers, being under no obligation to haul except 

when he felt like and for whom he pleased; a priv8te carrier as distinguished from a ‘common carrler. * 

‘%y interpret8tion of this paragraph would be 

that this sort of a carrier would have a permit 

to operate on any public highway, and that suah 

perma would entitle him to operate when and where 

he pleased.” 

We believe your first uestlon is answered by our 

a opinion0 No. O-1592, O-1497, t&,53?, O-3449 and 0-3449-A, oagies of which are encl,osed hereilth. 

Section 1 (g) of ArticIe glib, V.T.C.S., (H.B. 335, 

Aet.6 1931) defines a “motor carrier” 88 followa~, 

“(g) The term t&or oarrierl means any 

person, firm, corpc,ratlon, company, oo-pmtnerrhip, rssocioti on or joln#atock usoclatlon, 

and their losses, receivers or trusteea 8ppointed by any court whatsoever, owning, controlling, m8n8ging, operating or causing to be 

operated any motor propelled vehicle used in 

transporting property for compensation or hire 

over any public h1,ghway in this State, where in 

the course of such transportation 8 highway between two or more Incorporated citl.es,..towns 

or villages is traversed; provided, that the 

term ‘motor carrier’ as used in this Act shall 

not include, and this Act shall not apply to motor 

vehicles operated exclusively within the lncorpor8ted limits of cities .or towns.” 

A&lying this statutory definition to the facts presented in your second question Ft will, be noted that It does not depend upon whether the operation i# over a fixed route, or with 

fixed schedules or whether the carrier holds himself out to haul 

for the public at large. The operator Is a “motor carrier” when 
Honorable Jcsfil8. Dart, psge 3 O-3964 

(1) property is transported, (2) 1 n 

(3) for cqmpensation or hire, 

8 motor-propelled vehicle, 

and (4) over ony M$&w&y in this 

St8t.8, where in the course of such transportaticn a highway between two 07 more incorporated cities, townm&,p villages 1s 

t&versed. 

The operator you have described clearly comes within 

the &fin,ition of a .“motor carrier,” 8ssumlng the above listed 

elementti of the definition are pre~sent. * 

Section 2 of Article 9llb, V.T!C.S., makes all motor 

carriers as defined in Section 1, subject to the provisions of 

the Act. 

Ssction 3 of said Act reads: 

“No motor car$Wr shrll, after this Act goes 

Into effect, operate as P common carrier, without 

first having obtained from the Commission, under 

the provisions of this Act, a certificate of public convenience and necessity pursuuat to a ffnding to the effect that the public convenience and 

necessi’ty requires such operation. No motor cerrier shall, after this Act goes into effect, operate 

8s 8 contract carrier without having first obt@ned 

from the Commission a permit so to do, which 

permit shall have in all things complied with the requirements of this Act.” 

Section l’ih) of Article 9llb, V.T.C.S., defines a 

“contract c8rrier” as follows: 

“?hhs term lcontract crrrlert means any motor 

carrier as herein above defined transporting property for compensation or hire over any highway 

in this, State other than es 8 common carrier.” 

It will thus be seen that every “motor carrier” is 

either a “common ctcrier” or 8 “contract carrism,” If 8 common 

c8rrier a “certificate” is required, and if P contract carrier 

8 “permit ” Is required, to render the operation lawful. 

The facts presented are not sufficiently detailed for 

us to determine whether the motor carrier you describe should 

have a certificate or permit. If he hauls for whom he pleases, 

as the opportunity is offered, his oper&tlons might very well 
Honorable Jos. B. Dart, page 4 O-3964 

be to such an extlent that he would in fact be a cormnon carrier. 

Section 6 of the motor carrier ect requires the applicant for 

&-contract c&rrler permit to set forth in his application "the 

nature cf the transportation in which the applicant wishes,to 

engage stating substantially the territory to be covered by the 

operation and including the condition and character of the 

roads ever which the transportation Is to be performed." 

The permit issued to a contract carrier by the Railroad Commission describes the 'territory or hq.ghways, the service 

to be rendered and names the contracting parties the permit 

holder is authorized to serve. lt has been the prectice of the 

Commission to limit a contract c8rrier to five contracts based 

upon the proposition that when such a motor carrier serves a 

greater number of shipflers he in fact becomes a common carrier. 

The 8uthorisation of 8 common c8rrier or contract carrier is fully set out in his certificlte or p8rmj.t and if a 

question ersses- concerning the scope of a motor carrier's euthorized operations we suggest that his certiflcete or permit be 

examined. In this connecticn we call attention to Section 16 (e) 

which requires that an indentificetion card cont&ining certain information be displryed in the cab of each motor vehicle. 

Because of the nature of your second question we sre 

unable to give,& categorical answer but trust that the foregoing 

sufficiently enswsrs your question. 

Yours very truly 

ATTORNEY GEXERAI OF TEXAS 

BY Cecil C. Cammack 

Assistant 

CCC:db -- PAM 

Enclosures 

APPROVED Sep 23 1941 

GERALD C. MANN 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

APPROVED OPINION COMMITTEE 

BY BWB, CHAIRMAN