Railroad: Commission of Texas 

Austin, Texas 

Cent lemen : 

Opinion No. O-3107 

Re: Effect of prevision in Crawford Truck Lines’ 

interstate certificate restricting the cartifitite 

holder to the use of trucks owned by him. 

You have handed us your file on Certificate No. 3084 issued to Russell C. 

Crawford, dba Crawford Truck Lines on Apnll 29, 1940, and in connection 

therewith request oux Opinion in response to these questions: 

It 1 - (a) May Crawford Truck Line, under the facts presented by the 

enclosed file in view of Its limited, Texas interatLte~: common 

carrier certificate lawfully operate\:, motor vehicle under lease, 

and 

(b) may said lines lawfully transfer this Railroad Commission’s 

:‘Pl#e& end%id&blfication cards to such lease vehicles? 

4 2 - Does thie Commieeion have the power to require an owner of Tems 

Interstete Cownon Carrier certificate under the facts and conditions prerronted by the file, to wwn the motor vehicles operated 

under such certificate, or should this Commission reco&ze 11~:::: 

leases to the same extent as they are recogcized by the Interstate 

Commerce Commlseion? 

The certificate in question and its supporting order contain the provision 

that “All equipment to be operated under authority herein granted is 

restricted to that owned by the holder of such certificate and shall not 

exceed seven truhhr .I’ Purely interstate operations are authorized, intrastate 

services are pcohlblted. The order aleo contains the following: .i, 

‘TIiS COMMISSION FURTHER FINDS that thelaigh~+yBttha.t~ ~~~3.8~~2ican0.:~opoaea 

have heretofore been used by the applicant under his contract carrier 

permit, interstate, and that the h&hwaya are of such type ef construction 

and in euch state of repair and maintenance as will permit the traffic 

sought to be place thereon by the applicant without unnecessary damage 

and otherwise interfering with the general #IbMc: tlping,#said highways 

for general highway purposes; that the applicant has furnished satisfactory proof of his financial responsibility.; and that the equipment 

proposed to he used by the applicant complied with the laws of the 

State of Texas in reSard to safety devicee, dimensions, etc. 
Railroafi Cor.xniasion of Terns, page 2 O-3107 

"VIE CoEiMISSIOIJ in iaauin;; this order has not considered the vnatter 

of convenience and necessity, nor the ac‘squacy of the existing tranaportntion facilities. Therefore, niter c:1refull:: cor,aidering the evidence, 

the law and its own rules ond regulations, tine Commission is of the 

opinion that tb.s application should be granted, subject to the limitations 

and restrictions hereinafter set forth; and the Contract Carrier 

Permit 170. 111.87, Interstate should be cancelled. Accordingly, jut is 

* * Y" 

Unless it can be gleaned from the quoted portion of the or,der there is nothing 

in such order or elsewhere in the file which discloses the reason actuating 

the Cormlaaion in nlacing such restriction in the certificate. It has been 

settled by the case of THOMPSON vs. MCDONALD, 95 Fed. (2) 337, certiorari 

denied, and a n~&er of opinions by our,Couzta of Civil A:>peala, error 

denied in some cf tb.em,that to l&ully en@@ in B pur:!.: ::nterstate motor 

carrier oxration one must obtain from ths Railroad Coxii::slon of Texas a 

certificate or permit evidencing a ftiding that the highxaya to be used wiil 

be able to take the added traffic burden. Hence, it is not difficult to 

mderatand the reason upon which the restriction of this o=rstion to seven 

trucks was grounded. Had no limitation of this nature been placed Ln the 

authority the operation may have presently emerged with a hundred or more 

trucks, thus throwing on the highvaya authorized to.be used a traffic burden 

m?nytixes greater than tha Commission had in mind would be dare wy:ea LL 

manted the certificate. But, it seems to us that in granting this certificate the Commission must have found that these highways could adequately 

handle as many as seven owned trucks and a leased truck is no greater burden 

to the highway and will congest traffic no more than one which is owned by 

the operator, We are left to conclude that other considerations than hi&way 

conditions and traffic safety must have produced the attempted reatrictlnn 

to the use of trucks owned by Csawford. As we understand the opinion in 

the McDonald case, aupra, the Railroad Commission's jurisdiction over purely 

interstate motor carrier operations is limited to considerations of hi&my 

conditions and traffic safety. It is our opinion therefore that the 

restriction contained in this certificate is void ~inaofar as :t >rould prevent 

the use of leased trucks. Your question & (a) is answered In the affirmative. 

B::- the above we do not mean to say that mder no circumstances could the 

Cxxxiaaion restrict an interstate operation to trucks owned by the certificate 

holder. In aome instances it may be that it could. As an illustration; 

auqpoae in a given case the Commission should not limit the number of i--ucks 

?rhich could be used, but believed that if the carrier should be permitted 

to operatt leased trucks there would bs certain seasons dur?ng which it 

?.iould glut the highways with leased trucks, believing also that any such 

aenaonal bua'inens wouldnot warrant the carrier in purchasing such equipnsnt. 

Urder such circumstances, it is not at all certain thct the Cormniasion 

m?&t not be able to protect the highways against such undue ,trsffic b: 

siqly requiring that the carrier use only equipmant amed b:, i,t. 

Our nn%er.to question 1 (b) is that such plates and identification cards 

no:: be lawfully transferred with the Commission's permission. However, 
c, . 

Railroad Commission of Texas, page 3 O-3107 

such permission must be obta:;ned as is customarily done vhen it is desired 

to retire one vehicle and >ubc,titute another. 

Answering question 2, it is our opinion that the Commission, should recoaize 

suck leases, provided the leased equipment is in compliance with the 

stetutes and rules and regulations of the Railroad Commission. In other 

words, the Con?nlssion should permit the use of leased equipment if it would 

authorize the use of the same equipment were the same owned by Crawford. 

You also request our opinion in response to the following question: 

"(3) Does the owner of e Texas Interstate Common Zarrier Certificate have su.thoT*i~ty, so far as this Commission is concerned, to 

operate as a "broker' as that term is used in the Federal Motor Carrier 

Act, if such owner be authorized by the Interstete'Commerce Commission 

to act as a 'broker' es that term is used in said Federal Act?" 

The licensin:: of interstate transportation brokers is provided for in Xec. 

311, Title 49, U. S. C. A. It is therein provided that it shall he unlawful 

for a broker to "employ any carrier by motor vehicle who or whichisnot the 

lawful holaer of an effective certificate or permit" issued b> the Interstate 

Commerce Commission. As already noted herein, such interstate crlrricrs must 

also have certificates or permits from the Railroad Commission. evidencing a 

findir.g that the highways traversed by them will stand the traffice caLsed 

by the operation. If the carrier who performs the actual transportstion at 

the instance of the broker has no authority from the Railroad Comm5.ssi.on, 

then, of course, the operation is unlawful and both the carrier and broker 

are violstin the motor carrier statide. But, we are of the o?irion that 

the Commission msy not interfere in the actions of a broker, licensed under 

t&e Federal rtatute, in his arranging for freight to be transported pureb: 

in iuu4siiate commerce, where the actual tronsportatioi? is to be perforE? 

b;~ s carrier holain, a certificate issued by the Railrood~ Co?xfiiss~.on 

edhorizing use of the hi&vsys, an2 the act of transportalio~ itself i.S 

within. the certificate. 

Yours very truly 

ATTOIQm GElEPAL OF TEXAS 

GRL:ob 

APPROVED MAY 21, 19&l 

s/ Grover Sellers 

FIFST ASSISTAX 

ATTOREEY GENERAL 

By s/ Glenr. 9. Lewis 

Assistant 

APPROVXD: OPINION CCXMITTElj: 

By EWB CHAIRW.1~