Hon. James E. RLldag 

Director, Motor Transportation DivisLon 

Railroad Commission of Texas 

Austln, Texas 

Dear Sir: Opinion NO. 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 carrier motor carrier certificates 

of convenience and necessity issued by the Railroad Commission authorizing substantially the following operations: 

#2780, from Childress to Paducah and from Quanah to Paducah; 

#2841, from Wichita 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 to Wichita Falls via 

Lorenza, Rolls, Floydada, Matador and Vernon, and Rolls to 

Matador via Roaring Springs and Dickens, and with an alternate route; #2156, from Dallas 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 property destined to 

any point between Amarillo 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 property destined to or from any 

point between Fort Worth, Dallas and Amarlllo, even 

though such property might be handled by an interline 

connecting carrier. 

Certificate #2156 was originally Issued at 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 Issued by the Railroad Commission 

than those mentioned above, although ft has a certificate 

issued by the Interstate Commerce Commission authorizing 

service from Vernon into Altus, Oklahoma, and Hollis, Oklahoma, into Childress, Texas, and a return movement from 

Childress by the reverse route. You request our opinion in 

response to the following questions: 

Falli('?i 

Can Miller and Miller interchange at Wichita 

Dallai or 

th 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 of Dallas 

is loaded on the truck which regularly runs through 

Vernon and Altus into Childress, is such operation 

via the State of Oklahoma illegal insofar as the 

Texas law is concerned? 

“(3) In other words, may a restriction in a Texas 

intrastate certificate be circumvented by 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 served by such carrier 

under Texas laws if it stays within Texas because of 

the restriction in the intrastate certificate?" 

It seems rather clear to us that while Certificates 

Numbers 2156 and 2841 were separately owned the operator of 

a2156 could not have picked up freight at Dallas 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 Certificate No. 2156. The fact that 

the certificates were finally gathered into a common ownership did not enlarge the operating rights of either of them. 

From the opinion of the Austin Court of Civil Appeals in 

Railroad Commission v. Red Arrow Freight Lines, 96 S.W. (2d) 

735, we quote: 

"The two certificates were granted at different 

times to dlfferent Individuals. They were granted to 

serve separate and distinct transportation requirements: The one served the territory from Houston to 

San Antonio and lntermedlate points; the other, that 

from San Antonio to the Valley and intermediate points. 

In considering the question of convenience and necessity as to each certificate, only the needs, require- 
Hon. James E. Klldag, page 3 o-2690 

ments, etc., of the two termlni. and intermediate polnts 

were Involved. Neither certificate had any relation 

to the other. The fact that common ownership was 

finally united in Lawler In no way modified theLr effect." 

If u8 understand the facts correctly, while this. 

carrier has a certificate from the Interstate Commerce CommissLon authorizing servFce from Vernon, Texas, to Altus, 

Oklahoma, and from that point to Childress, Texas, It has no 

certificate from the Railroad Commission of Texas authorizing the us8 of the Texas roads in such operations. Even 

though it should be conceded that nothing but Interstate 

shipments are being handled, its operations In Texas on the 

journey from Vernon to Childress, via Altus and Hollls, 

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 Commission v. 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 

Commission v. 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 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

By s,f Glenn R. Lewis 

Glenn R. Lewis 

Assis,tant 

GRL:AMM:wc 

APPROVED SEP 16, 1940 

s/Gerald C. Mann 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEKAS 

Approved Opinion Committee By s/BWB Chairman