THX ,ATlL-OHNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
HonorableWalton D. Bood La? EnforcementOfficer& Chief of Inspectors RailroadCommissionof Texas Austin,Texas
Dear sir: opiniongo. 04221 Re: Is the~.proposed Lease to be used by truckersin the Lower.BloGrande Valley an attemptto evade the Motor Cerrler IawP
This will acknowledgereceiptof your requestmade~toUI)Vhl@,is as follows:
"A copy qf s proposedlease to be used by thetruckers'inthe Lower Rio GrandeValley'inthe transportation of cottonto variouspoints tbrougbout the Valley and/or ihe Port of Brownsvillein Caraaron Countg;Texas, Is attachedhereto.
've respactfullyrequestan opinionon t&is at V0ur earliestconvenience; however,inour judgmentthis icronly an; attemptto evade the Motor CarrierLaw."
In reply thereto,this lied@ advise thata contractpractically the same, whit oertainexceptions,whi&are immaterialfor the purpose6f.thisopinion, was involved in the case of Anderson-Clayton Companyv. The State,62S. W. (2d) X7, and 82 S. W. (26) 941.
71: .I 'he first opinionin the casea above mentimed, the Commissionof Appeals vas asked in the third queetionthere submitted,the folloWin&:
"3. Were the &ose-petitloner,soperatingthe lease trucksfor oompanaation or hire under provisionaof Chapter27'7,Acts of the &nd Legislature, known as House Bill ,335?"
TO the questionpropoundedthe Court made thle directreply:
'She Third question .cert;ified presentsa questionof fact and not of law." (Underscoringouris) 31. Walton D. Hood, Page 2 O-1221
P*- -, i~skT!e.~".~ i?..C. here submittedis subject,under proper pleadings,to an of what is actuallytaktig piece. expl;iratlou
Cor~seqzut.ly tke trial court or the jury hearing:.thefacts provenwould 3 .'--rrtiae ,..e UC_- the issue,after tb.eevidencehas been heard.
'kexfore, it is impossible,for this Department, withoutknowingthe facts, co ;zss '~jonthe question8s to whetherthe contractsubmittedis an nttemp? ,:o evade the Motor Carrierlaw or not.
Yours very truly,
AT.COm fXKEXAL~CFTExAS
s/ Gee. S. Eerry
BY Geo. S . Berry Assistant