OFFICE OFTHEATI’ORNEY GENERALOFTEXAS 

AUSTIN 

EonorabLo Jmaa b. Ellday~ 

nlr.Otbr 

mtor Xrani3portatlon Dlrision 

iiailroad Coramiesion of Texar 

Au8 tin, Texas 
324 

ord.er2, one dfmyine tlie ccntraot cerrler application 

and tkie other denying the oormon carrier a~p,plIcatloh. 

..nLd appealed to the Giatriat court or irctvis County, 

Texas, trozn the order denying the contract oerrier 

appfIoa.tIon, on tha ground &hat th6 hailroad CoaaaIreIon 

had, on harob 99, 1934, Isruad a valid order granting 

8 contract osrrier psrmlt to imld. fn thle contention, 

=:ald was nuatalned. Smith YE. dald Transrer k 2torage 

Co., Xno., 07 :;. h. (Ed) 991. 

%ald,‘e operations were Intersteta, and m4x.m tha 

Fadsral Lotor Carrier Lew wa5 petsed, i.aid op~iledto 

the Interstate Conrasrce Conmission, 81~0, in the 

alternative, for a Contract Carrier ZemIt or a Ccmnon Carrier Cartifioate. The Xnteretate Commercle 

CommIasIon granted to gald a Cormon Carrier Certlilcate. 

Weld has, eince 1995, been optratIng under the authority of the Injunction of the Travis County DIstrIot 

Court end It.6 Federal certltloate. The iiaIlroa6 Codselon is raw willing to lasus to Kald Its oontreot earrler pcrmIt and truck plates. ?irald la wIllIng to 

8ubmIt to the polioe power of tho Railroad CommIssIon 

but wantends that as his oparatione &aye been Interstate 

the Reilroad CommIaalon*a authorfty was alway lltited 

to the question of the use of Texas roads by'kald and 

only lnaldenfally, IS at all, to t&e oharaoter of hIcr 

smvioa. 3% contends further that the Interstate Conmerae Co,mmlesIon has jurllrdiction over the.oharaoter 

of his aervIae, and hrin& found that he Ie a oommon 

carrier; and the Railroad CoamI8sIon and the Courta 

of this state having found that 'he Ie entitled to 

use the highways, than the Railroad Comrnisslon should 

lenua to him, ae evidenae of his right to u80 tbs 

highway, a aomao~ carrier osrtifioate and oommon 

aarrlar plates. 

*~ueatfon: Should the ~eifroed Comise~on under 

the Pacts ~abore set forth aa authorization for tho uao 

of the rotidle ieaue to Leld a common carrier oertiiieate, 

or nhould It Isnue a aontraat aarrler p~rmIt?~ 

In tha case of %iOEp~on 5'8. MaDonald, 93 Psd. (Ed) 937, 

osrtlorarl denied, it was held that tha motor aarrler act of 

1938 passe% by the 74th Congrese had not aupexsedsd Artiole Qllb, 
Eon. 36LXb6 b. Kildoy, I%@ 3 

vemon*r Civil Ltatutea, being tbe Texas Comon Carrier sotor 

MrfleF LSW, ill6Of&W 46 th6 POWOF Of the klbO& CO~:1661OII Of 

~~~~ to invastl~ete and pa6e upon the sufflcl4noy 0r tbe part;- 

OU&F highway tO stand the added tF6fiiO burden i6 OonOeFQd. 

m0 Aosttn axid $;a00 Carts 0r Ciril Appeal6 have followed the 

bou$rig Of the !fCnOMld C6QO iSl a XKl&haF Or Oa608, in BoaEe Of 

&fob WFit6 Ot eFrOF Were denied. &bile the iiailroad COIPIG~B- 

#loo, 16 WithCUt jUri6diOtiOQ t0 inCtlh-0 intO the QU66tiOII Ot 

00nranienoo and nnoessity upon the iil+g of en application ror 

6 0ert~ficata or pox-mit to do purely an Interstate bU6in666, 

it dill lies w&thin the sound dlsoretion ot the riallmad COGfia#ion to grant or deny such a oertiiioate or.per&it depending 

ppon the oonditlon of the partioufar highway sought to be u66d 

in soeh operation. Fran the Wats outlined by you, it appear6 

XaU Tren6rer &. Storage Co. 1x10. reoeired iron the Hailroad 

Corrri66iOn aOOntraOt a6rrieF peX'V&t. %&it thereafter th0 

Ilailroad Co60alsaion attempted to resalnd the Order grantlrig th6 

pmn.%t. 521s Court of Civil Appeal6 held that the latter order 

war maid, lsaving the OFder gF6ntfng ths peF5liti In Pull toroe 

and eireiot. The judgmnt OS the wutt va6 such a~ to peridt hti 

to therclaiter-operate under 6uah permit. The grurtlng of the 

oontmot oaxvi~er pezxit married wltb it a finding that the highW8)a WQUld Stand the add6d tFSiffi0 bur46n which WOUld fOllti 

iF= the OpQmtiOn Of thS pBFIE% A 0omon orrrior Qotor oarFIEF Ootilflaata la a broader 6UthOFity than a contrafd 

zanier persIt and would authoriao a bOEitieF burden Upan the 

hi&hut&ye. The Eailraad Coannir6ion baring g;ranted to "bald 

Tnnefer and Storage Conrpany, Inc. oaly the authority to ~66 

the hi@lW6ytB 6UrbifOiMtiY t0 fulfill the OOlltmOt6 iQVOlVd tn 

the applioat2on and pemlt and tke'oourtS havine done no mm 

th6~ to 6cmfim thet petit it to3&~6 that m0h oonoern ha6 

netef obtained from the Golaeireion or fawt the oourte 6x1~ authority to orpanb his u6e of the blghmafs from that OS a contr60t 

aamler to thst of ooxaon earrlsr. Tb6 60tfon of the IQttlF6ttlte 

CO&meroe Oolnnfesion Iti the promiNw¶ baa BO legal braring upon 

tam wlonttan. The operator bae a dontmut 0aFri8r psFmit. 

x0 objeotfon ~16 86~0 to the gmntfng of another parleit ident&tal with that one ior the puFpa60 Of ooJlftmLfng the BeQ4. 

BOWOY~Y, the Go~!u~i66ion 6bouM Bat iesue to the oon~srn a wimaOn @UF~UF aertlffoate exospt and, ualeaa tt be upon another 

and diffareat application. 

roure very truly