Texas Austin,Texas
Centlemen:
OpinionNo. O-3107 Re: Effect of previsionin CrawfordTruck Lines' interstatecertificaterestricting the cartifitite holder to the use of trucks owned by him.
You have handed us your file on CertificateNo. 3084 issuedto RussellC. Crawford,dba CrawfordTruck Lines on Apnll 29, 1940, and in connection therewithrequestoux Opinion in responseto these questions:
It1 - (a) May CrawfordTruck Line, under the facts presentedby the enclosedfile in view of Its limited,Texas interatLte~: common carriercertificatelawfullyoperate\:, motor vehicleunder lease, and (b) may said lines lawfully transferthis RailroadCommission's :'Pl#e&end%id&blfication cards to such lease vehicles? 4 2 - Does thie Commieeionhave the power to requirean owner of Tems IntersteteCownon Carrier certificateunder the facts and con- ditionsprerrontedby the file, to wwn the motor vehicles operated under such certificate,or should this Commissionreco&ze 11~:::: leases to the same extent as they are recogcizedby the Interstate CommerceCommlseion?
The certificatein questionand its supportingorder containthe provision that "All equipmentto be operatedunder authorityherein granted is restrictedto that owned by the holder of such certificateand shall not exceed seven truhhr.I'Purely interstateoperationsare authorized,intrastate pcohlblted. The order aleo containsthe following: servicesare .i,
'TIiSCOMMISSIONFURTHERFINDS that thelaigh~+yBttha.t~~~~3.8~~2ican0.:~opoaea have heretoforebeen used by the applicantunder his contractcarrier permit, interstate,and that the h&hwaya are of such type ef construction and in euch state of repairand maintenanceas will permit the traffic sought to be place thereonby the applicantwithout unnecessarydamage and otherwiseinterferingwith the general#IbMc: tlping,#said highways for generalhighwaypurposes;that the applicanthas furnishedsatis- factoryproof of his financialresponsibility.; and that the equipment proposedto he used by the applicantcompliedwith the laws of the State of Texas in reSard to safety devicee,dimensions,etc. Railroafi of Terns, page 2 O-3107 Cor.xniasion
"VIE CoEiMISSIOIJ in iaauin;; this order has not consideredthe vnatter of convenienceand necessity,nor the ac'squacy of the existingtranapor- tntion facilities. Therefore,niter c:1refull:: cor,aidering the evidence, the law and its own rules ond regulations,tineCommissionis of the opinionthat tb.sapplicationshouldbe granted,subjectto the limitations and restrictionshereinafterset forth;and the ContractCarrier Permit 170.111.87, Interstate shouldbe cancelled. Accordingly,jutis * * Y"
Unless it can be gleanedfrom the quoted portionof the or,derthere is nothing in such order or elsewherein the file which disclosesthe reasonactuating the Cormlaaion in nlacingsuch restrictionin the certificate. It has been settledby the case of THOMPSONvs. MCDONALD,95 Fed. (2) 337, certiorari denied,and a n~&er of opinionsby our,Couzta of Civil A:>peala, error denied in some cf tb.em,thatto l&ully en@@ in B pur:!.:::nterstate motor carrieroxration one must obtain from ths RailroadCoxii::slon of Texas a certificateor permitevidencinga ftidingthat the highxayato be used wiil be able to take the added trafficburden. Hence, it is not difficultto mderatand the reason upon which the restrictionof this o=rstion to seven truckswas grounded.Had no limitation of this nature been placed Ln the authoritythe operationmay have presentlyemergedwith a hundredor more trucks,thus throwingon the highvayaauthorizedto.be used a traffic burden m?nytixesgreaterthan tha Commissionhad in mind would be dare manted the certificate.But, it seems to us that in grantingthis cer- tificatethe Commissionmust have found that these highwayscould adequately handle as many as seven owned trucks and a leased truck is no greaterburden to the highwayand will congesttrafficno more than one which is owned by the operator,