Hon. James E. RLldag

Director, Motor TransportationDivisLon Railroad Commission of Texas Austln, Texas

Dear Sir: OpinionNO. O-2690 Re: Authority of Miller and Miller Freight Lines to interchange freight at Wfchita Falls under certificates contalnlng certain restrictions.

In your letter of September 5, 1940, and collaterally you advise us of these facts: Miller and Miller Freight Lines hold common carriermotor carrier certificates of convenienceand necessity issued by the Railroad Commission authorizing substantiallythe following operations: #2780, from Childress to Paducah and from Quanah to Paducah; #2841, fromWichita Falls to Memphis via Quitaque, Childress and Estelline; #2391, from Chlldress to Quitaque via Turkey and Estelline and from Childress to Amarlllo via Memphis and Estelline; #2565, from Lubbock toWichita Falls via Lorenza, Rolls, Floydada, Matador and Vernon, and Rolls to Matador via Roaring Springs and Dickens, and with an alternate route; #2156, fromDallas and Fort Worth to Amarillo, via Wichita Falls. Said Certlflcate#2156 contains this restriction:

"The carrier is further prohibited from transporting property or picking up propertydestined to any point betweenAmarillo on the one hand and Dallas
or Fort Worth on the other hand, even though such property IS to be transported the entire distance to Amarillo or to any other point, and there transferred to an interline carrier. It Is the purpose of this restriction to prohibit this carrier from plcking up or delfvering propertydestined to or from any point between Fort Worth, Dallas and Amarlllo, even though suchproperty might be handledby an interline connecting carrier.
Certificate#2156 was originally Issuedat a dlfferent time and to a different person from the various other certificates.Hon. James E. Kilday, page 2 o-2690

You advise us that Miller and Miller Freight Lines hold no other certificates Issuedby theRailroad Commission than those mentioned above, although ft has a certificate issued by the InterstateCommerce Commissionauthorizing service fromVernon intoAltus, Oklahoma,and Hollis, Oklahoma, into Childress,Texas, and a return movement from Childressby the reverse route. You request our opinion in response to the followingquestions:

Falli('?i Can Miller and Miller interchangeat Wichita

Dallai orth their own line, freight originating in

Fort Worth destined to Childress,Texas, a point between Fort Worth and Amarillo served by them
on an unrestricted certificate,when such freight is hauled all the way intrastate?
"(2) If the freight to Childress out ofDallas is loaded on the truckwhich regularly runs through Vernon and Altus into Childress, is such operation via the State of Oklahoma illegal insofaras the Texas law is concerned?

“(3) In otherwords, may a restriction in a Texas intrastatecertificatebe circumventedby a carrier's going across a State line under federal authority and thence back to Texas under federal authority Into a Texas town which may not be servedby such carrier under Texas laws if it stayswithin Texas because of the restriction in the intrastatecertificate?"

It seemsrather clear to us thatwhile Certificates Numbers 2156 and 2841 were separately owned the operator of a2156 could not have picked up freight atDallas or Fort Worth and delivered it. to the holder of #2841 at Wichita Falls for transportation to Childress, in view of the restrictions contained in CertificateNo. 2156. The fact that the certificateswere finallygathered into a common ownershipdid not enlarge the operatingrights of either of them. From the opinion of the Austin Court of Civil Appeals in Railroad Commissionv. Red Arrow Freight Lines, 96 S.W. (2d) 735, we quote:

"The two certificateswere granted at different times to dlfferent Individuals. Theywere granted to serve separateand distinct transportationrequirements: The one served the territory fromHouston to San Antonio and lntermedlatepoints; the other, that from SanAntonio to the Valley and intermediatepoints. In considering the question of convenienceand necessity as to each certificate, only the needs, require-Hon. James E. Klldag, page 3 o-2690

ments, etc., of the two termlni. and intermediatepolnts
were Involved. Neither certificatehad any relation to the other. The fact that common ownershipwas finally united inLawler In no way modified theLr effect."

If u8 understand the facts correctly, while this. carrier has a certificate from the InterstateCommerce CommissLon authorizing servFce fromVernon, Texas, to Altus, Oklahoma, and from that point to Childress,Texas, It hasno certificate from the Railroad Commission of Texas authorizing the us8 of the Texas roads in such operations. Even though it shouldbe conceded that nothing but Interstate shipmentsare being handled, its operations In Texas on the journey fromVernon to Childress,via Altus andHollls, Oklahoma, are clearly illegal. Thompson v. McDonald,95 F. (2d) 937; K. M. Fisher v. Railroad Commission, 138 S.W. (2d) 829; Winton v. Thomp,son,123 S.W. (2d) 951, error refused; Railroad Commissionv. Tips, 130 S.W. (2d) 1078; Bates v. Railroad Commission, 138 S.W. (26) 1104;Railroad Commission
v. L. D. Fisher, 127 s.w. (2a) 925; smfth v. Keele, 127 S.W. (2d) 926; Smith v. Coleman, 127 S.W. (2d) 928; Railroad Commissionv. McDonald, 127 S.W. (2d) 932.

Since Miller and Miller Freight Lines can neither take the freight off Its certificate#2156 operated trucks at points between Fort Worth and Amarillo and load the
same onto its Certificate#284l operated trucks for transportation to Chlldress,nor carry such freight around by Altus and Hollis, Oklahoma, to Childress,a categorical
answer to your questions is not considered necessary.

Yours very truly

ATTORNEYGENERAL OF TEXAS

By s,f Glenn R. Lewis Glenn R. Lewis Assis,tant

GRL:AMM:wc

APPROVED SEP 16, 1940 s/Gerald C. Mann ATTORNEYGENERAL OF TEKAS
Approved Opinion CommitteeBy s/BWB Chairman