OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Honorable Robert F. Poden, Jr. 

GOWity AttOXnsy 

Matae;orda County 

3ay city, Tsxaa 

Dear SLr: 

r YOU i6tt0r or 

0r tbiu department 

T said foaQts.w 

la or vwmn*8 Annotated 

ding aeven thouaand (VOW) 

uoh vehiolo or train or oomwelght than 8i.x hundred (600) pounds PSP 

lnoh width of tire upon any whoa1 aonomitrated 

upon the eurr800 Of the yehlmq shedi be operated on the public hi.~ ways outside of the 
gononbla Rotart F. Pedan, Jr., Faga 2 

llmite of en incorporated city or town; provfded, however, that the provisiona ct this 

section shall not become affective until the 

Cl.lz; day of Janusry, 1932.w (Undarraortng 

9 

The terms *blghway” and “public hi&hway” have bean 

defined by &atuta a8 follows: 

wTh8 tam0 ‘hl&hrey* aa ured la thle Act 

shall iaalude any publia road or thoroughfare 

or rectioa thereof ana any bridge, oulvart or 

other aeceesary structure appertaining thereto.” 

(Aots 1925, 30th Lee., oh. 188, p. 456, Art. 

6674a. V.A.C.S.) 

“‘Fublia Highway’ shall inolude any road, 

street, way, thoroughfare or bridge in this 

State not privately owrmd or controlled for 

the use of vahl.cles over which the State has 

leglelatl~e jurlsdlotlon under ite polloe 

power. - (Act8 1929, 41 Leg., 2nd C.S., p. 1713, 

oh. 88, 880. 1, es emended Aatr 1930, 4lat Leg., 

5th C.S., p. 151, oh. 23, sso. 1, xrt. 5575a-1, 

V.A.C.S.) 

our courtu have derinad these terms in the 8arm manaer. Railwsy 00. v. MontgomarJ, 83 Tax. 54, 19 8. w’. 1013i 

City of Dublin v. Barret (C.C.A.) 242 6. w. 535; and a woounty 

road* is a -public hlgbway:~ 21 Tex. Jur. 528-330. 

It remains for us to determine who has the authority, 

or, more aocurately, duty, to weigh VahiCleu to datarmlae whathor there ia a compliance with Sootion 5 ot Article B27a of VaPnon’s Annotated Penal Code. ~~~a have aaraiully examined the provisions or Title 93 or Chapter 6 or the Rsvised civil Statute, 

aad Al'tiOl4U l047, et B4q. of the Penal Coda relating to Tubl$o welgharsw and oan discover no such authority given those 

Individuals. As far as v;e oan determine the Statute8 relating 

to public wetgharr attempt tc do no more then regulate the 

busina60 or those angaging fn thst cccup4tloa for hire. Xadeed, saotlon 6 of Artiola 827a, Vernon's Annotated Fanal Code 

s~a~lfically enjoin6 upon licenee and watght inspaotora of the 

State mghwsy Department the duty to determine acmplianaa with 

the load limit Zen in the f’ollowing languagar 

L 
Roamable Robert 1. Potion, Jr., Pago s 

“SOO. 6. Any llaonae and wolght lnepeotor 

of the State Blghway Uepartmmt, hating reaeon 

to believe that the gross weight of a loaded 

vehicle ie uulawfUl, 1s aut&orized to tilghthe 

same either by mean8 of portable or statioaary 

males, and to require that 'auoh rehiole be 

&riven to the ararettt roalee in the event euoh 

lsoalee are within two mller. The llupeotar .mw 

then require thd driver or operetor to unload 

Wtuedletelg suoh portion OS the load ao mey be 

nsoeseary to bsorease the groaa weight of suoh 

vehiole to the maxlmum grorr weight 8proltled 

by thlr Act." 

Conatrolng thla rtatute, this depertmeat hold la 

Opinion No. O-1454 that onl euoh llooa~r aad weight lnrpmotorr 

or the State Righway DePar 74ant have authority to walgh veblolee 

to determine rhetber or not them ia an unlawful load, and anthorlty to require those dthia two rller of eoales to drive 

to them. we hold that ordlnuy pee00 offlour have no akoh authorlty. A:?OOQr Of thi8 opinion i8 enoloaed herewith. 

For the fmac~na given in Opinion t?o. O-1454 aad under. 

tbm authorities there olted It lo our opinion and pa ara advised that a oertifled pub& wolgher has no authority to wei@ 

vehlolea apon the piblio oountp roadr of Wtagorda Oounty to 

deteraiae whethor there i8 a~oompZ%anco with Seotion 5 of Artlole 8270 of Vernon*a Anaotatod Penal Oodo, unle~r nquerted 

to do 60 by the driver or'owner of the vehlole. 

A IeNTl- ” 

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

Areietant