Court Opinion

ID: 9645398
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 21:23:34.809118+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:28.085551
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing
In the interest of accuracy we quote the testimony of Captain Law with reference to the letter from Director Bryan Bell:
“In my searches I come up with a letter that was wrote by Mr. Bryan Bell, his personal opinion, to someone we had filed charges against, that if the city limits that touched were contiguous, they would not have to have authority.”
Appellees say that we erred in our original opinion in making .this statement:
“V.A.T.S. Penal Code, Art. 1690b’ provides for the arrest, prosecution and fine of persons violating the Motor Carrier Act. It is under this provision-*657of the Act that appellants intend to proceed in their efforts to enforce the law against appellees.”
Appellees point out that in their petition they pled that they were threatened with arrest and the stopping of their business either by criminal prosecutions or by injunc-tive process.
The paragraph quoted from our opinion was based on the testimony of Captain Law as follows:
“And Colonel Garrison asked the Attorney General for a ruling in view of a criminal prosecution, which ours would be if we filed on one.” * * *
“Q. (By Mr. Currie) That is what you are presently doing? A. Yes, Sir.
“Q. Except in this instance where we have got a stipulation that you are not going to do it as long as this case is pending, or until the Attorney General — A. I have orders from Colonel Garrison not to file on those type of cases until this case is settled.
“Q. If it hadn’t been for our bringing this case, you would have already been doing it? A. Yes, sir. * * *
“Q. If this lawsuit were not pending, and you had not received the instructions from your superiors that you previously mentioned, and you filed on a truck line such as one of the plaintiffs here, for operating as described in their petition, would you be doing so as an official act of the Department of Public Safety? A. Yes, sir, that is the only interest I have in this case.
“Q. And you would not be doing so as E. C. Law, an individual? A. No, sir.
“Q. You would be doing it in your official capacity? A. Yes, sir.”
In their motion for rehearing appellees cite three cases which they did not cite in their original briefs. These three cases are: New Way Lumber Co. et al. v. Smith, 128 Tex. 173, 96 S.W.2d 282 (affirming Smith et al. v. New Way Lumber Co., Tex.Civ.App., 84 S.W.2d 1104) ; Anderson, Clayton & Co. et al. v. State ex rel. Allred, 122 Tex. 530, 62 S.W.2d 107; Anderson, Clayton & Co. et al. v. State ex rel. Allred, 125 Tex. 453, 82 S.W.2d 941 (reversing Tex.Civ.App., 68 S.W.2d 544).
A study of Anderson, Clayton litigation properly begins with Anderson, Clayton & Co. et al. v. State ex rel. Allred, 122 Tex. 530, 62 S.W.2d 107. The suit began when the State filed its petition for injunction under authority of Art. 1690b, Sec. (c). The defendants filed a cross-action. The State then took a non-suit. In answering certified questions a Commission of Appeals, opinion adopted, held that where the State voluntarily invokes the jurisdiction of a court by submitting its rights for adjudication it will be bound thereby, and a defendant will be entitled to invoke the court’s jurisdiction to plead and prove a defense or a cross-action germane to the matter in controversy. No such situation is present in the instant case. The holding in the Anderson, Clayton case in 62 S.W.2d 107 is not applicable here.
Following the answers to the certified questions, the Anderson, Clayton case was returned to the District Court where an instructed verdict was granted by the trial court. Judgment was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals. 68 S.W.2d 544. But the Supreme Court again reversed the case holding that a fact issue was presented for determination by a jury. Anderson, Clayton & Co. et al. v. State ex rel. Allred, 125 Tex. 453, 82 S.W.2d 941. These later appeals involve the same case and are but a continuation of the case involved in 62 S.W. 2d 107. Certainly jurisdiction having once been obtained, continued throughout successive appeals. Under the circumstances none of the appeals lends support to appellees’ contention.
Neither do we think the holding in New Way Lumber Co. v. Smith, 128 Tex. 173, 96 S.W .2d 282, lends support to appellees’ *658contention. In that case the statute was attacked as being unconstitutional and void. Appellees in the case now before us make no such allegation or claim in regard to the statute.
Appellees in this case say in substance that if we accept their interpretation of a valid penal statute, they must be found not guilty of violating said statute. We think they should urge their defense in a criminal action, if the State files criminal proceedings against them, pursuant to Art. 1690b, §§ (a) and (b) Vernon’s Ann.P.C.; or in a civil action, if the State elects to file a suit for injunction pursuant to Art. 1690b, § (c), Vernon’s Ann.P.C.
Appellees’ motion for rehearing is overruled.