History
  • No items yet
midpage
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
O-2296
| Tex. Att'y Gen. | Jul 2, 1940
|
Check Treatment
Case Information

*1 443 i . .

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS

AUSTIN

Honorable Emer L, I&me8

County Attorney

-dheslea-County

iihoeler, Teras

cabillty of the ler aot to nn AOA ri?rtidSAt OWtlf3S Of 8 in the state of re~lstarod or oause to bo operetaa Texas an an *OcaRsional tura is defined with- truok In thie state en6 owner dolivers wk3lesal0 gWx4.ea frara Oklahma to Terra

aueixtmere but iitekee no diroot or 1rbiFtWt

charge to the oustocmr for auoh dellves$?

“D. Xay tha above deearibed wholesale grooer or any other Qkllaboma flm or kianu-

faoturer mks an oooualonnl trip into Sxaa

;ianorable Eoroer L. 3mw, Pa@ 2

with suo!a vohiole or vahlolsa for the

pupose of 6ellvarl~~ 3smhutlise belonp

la: to suah psrson or firm to Toxae oue-

tcxmrs where no Qimot chnrge is cade for mob dallvsrp but whws thu Cellvery ,=!.a~ of the s~ohandiss is graatm than the,

prioe ohurgod to sue: TOXAQ owtxmr 1S.

such ouatomr reoeioed tho nmroixmdlee at the wamhouscr of the U&x&ma r3.m nnd trens~rtQd it to Teror, fa the ouatomrr

own v&lole or at Us3 own 8xpemo7*

Sootion 5 of Artiole 82i% of the peaal Cods reads, in part, as follovs~

** l + ml p r ovided, rurtho r, that XiV4it6dy OWA& %liy AOAMtlfdt3At OWlM r Of a motor vehlolo nay be perolit e & to make an oaoasl3nal trip into Wa state with such of tkla sot vehlclo Tackler the privlledoa obtaini= auoh ~toiqwrary ro~lstra-

nit&u: tioa oortifloste.*

“If .tht3

tru&s in question ers oat being opefstod oOZIpOAL3atiOA fd hire,

it ia ray o&-don, end you are ao iwlvlsod, thei tha operators oi the twaokr cotid

zako oeotislonal Wlps into Texas by virtue oi’ the provlsio:~,s of Article 827b, sootions nnd 5, of the Pans1 Cix5.Q of Texas wit;?out ro*;iatori~ in the State of 9!cm38.*

0~ i)pinlsn HO, o-lags is to .ti~ same em0t. copfss or both or tiiose o~inlons as-o inolwetl heroin mr your inform- UOA.

In line with our opiniondl above referred to, you iwe *3 .

Hono+1&3 ‘Hoaer L? &see, 3age

advlaed that the trualra operated bg the Oklf%hom& eOrpomMon trip* provisIon or the ui%ld aoca within the ~oooasioaal rtatute, if 8ald truoice are not being opm tad for mama- tiOA or IAre.

Tho anawer to your queatioas A and 8 are oontrolled, we believe, by the holUng af the stqmm court or ?exae in the ease of Xew Xay Luznber Go. va+ Sulth, 3. ?I. (2d) 282. In that 0498 the oourt wee conoarnud with whether or not the truake operated by Em 4iy Luxber Gongany were *oo?ltmot oar- riers4 ~8 chat tern 16 ddxned in the .mCor oorrlcr act as frAlOws~

*(h) The tam *oontraot oarrier’ z%xma ay Plotor oerr5.er as harelnabove doflnod

trenup0rtin.g property for conpensatlon br state otlmr hire over nw hi.zh~i~,+ls thanasactomaa

The question, then, W&9 whether or Aot the truoks 0r the ~ul% bar ca~~pany whioh hauler? lu!!be+r that belonpct to the azgany for delivery to 0~8tohlora wdre being opera ted oong~?nsa- titan or hire. The court hold that tha truoiso wer8 be- 3p1 ereted for OOZlQeAPcatiOA or Nrs end baeod %&eeir holdlq I.@CPA the faot that t&a 0oupaAyzmde n. aari7ti3 cim.typ f3r $28 do- livery af the lumber aver and above the aotuaL mat of the s4aei. m-3 wiir t stated na f01frws1

*?JAder tti faata zitntod here thy oarrry- ing of 1cad.m~ owned by the ooqmny ln its own tr-u&s does cot r_t.ea~t it fro= tie ?ro- vtdone of this law. This IS not a aase tdaars~ the tmeke are opratod axolusivoly

within ths lnoorjwrated lkzlte of a tona or oitgi nor ie it n cnue wham the price of the l~oods deUveref3 is the sew as those

undekivarod~ On the ~oa*War~, it is 01mrly a case *where the price of the lunber inoludes a direat oharge for the delivery thereof.

The oarrylng charse i.e baaed dlroatly .on the dfataacr trm~led and the 04.&t of the truck.

sinoe tbu uompny reooiva oofzpensatlon Zor t,ae dellvssy of th% limber , It claerly ap-

era that the txuuks usstl oopt) under the r erlnltlon of a *oaat.nct oasrier,’ md 9r8 eubjoot to the provlsioas >I artlole 9Llb,*

44ti Under the holding OS the suprem Court case, supa, you are therefore advised that the tru&s operate& by 'the aoapeny in question A presented by you would not be ogerated for cangennation or hire, because O-J charge is ado for the delivary or the xxooerlcs over 2nd d&ova the actual cost or the goceries in Oklahormr A sinllar ciusatlo?l was presented by you In 1938 when you asked the questlon as followst

Way '3~3 gx3prietor of an wholesale gasoline buslmss In the 3&ta of Oklnhom oauae a sotor vehiole belLon&% to woh

gropiotor ti be operated sorom the stats line into Texas with a load of gasoline for the pur,mso of deliveriA~ such oomodlty to a oustoner lo the atate cf Texas, where a0 extra ohari;e is mado to the customer for

suoh delivery above the regular sale prloe of the ;asol.ino, without obtaining a tetnp+ rary ra&stration oertirioste or other reg- istration for sush rotor vohlole.*

hsststant Attorney ~%aersl hlbcrt G. lialiser xrote ac o&xion on August 2, 1938, in rhloh he held as followst

“Iti 1s th8 writer’s opinion that the ogorstor or such vchlole as desoribed ln

the question above my naks ocoesional

trips into and out 0r Texas without ob

tainia; a tciqmrary reSistration oertlft-

oate or other registration for such zator sod jirtiole 827-b, Sootions 1

vehiola.

and 5, mml code of ?oxes.* &, :Talkar’s opfnlon ma) in aur opinion, correct, and our a.mimr to your question A, sqxra, is in nzoord with the saz-z.

IA your question B, you ;)rwant a raat situation whhoro the trucks Seliverin,t: a&o an additimal ckar~a ,yaoorfe~ far the transportatl~n or delivery of the ;rocariss. In such case *we reel that l ;he Peats would t:=ovr the opsrators of those trucks direotly in line with the hold&: of the B.grane C3Txrt in the Now :isy Lunber Conpmy o&se eupra. It i.s our ogioion, thet the trucks ogerato as C0scribod in yam faot d ',?orerore, in QUMtioIl 13 w3d.d be opeiated :‘or a03

Situation contained pensation or hire and would not cozm witNn the *oooaslom1 trip” provision quo tzd sups.

. . -

.: Eonorable ?QWW L, Kosee, r3e;s

v. should the resident mmor or a mtcr v-hfole be olassed RS a wtor oarrler whar-e he transports ~000s mres and zierchan- dlse aolr:,enmtlon .and hire fron an In- oor;;oratcd town alom: a state Z~i~~:ay or other road to an un-1zcoraoratoZ town or vfll?.ce portatlon no 1naor;orated :vhore in the oo%reb of such traas-

town in passed?” This department has prevlouslj- passed on a Eydostion identioal with that whioh you ,:rom?nt in your c,uestlon nunbor Zor your Inromatlon, oo~ias of Oplr-Lons ;-:o. c-1497 and c. Ito. O-1592 on this point ere o~lnlons, your ti;lrd question is answered 1~. the negative. lnolosed heroin. 3ased on such

illly Coldbor& [ Asslatant

Case Details

Case Name: Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Court Name: Texas Attorney General Reports
Date Published: Jul 2, 1940
Docket Number: O-2296
Court Abbreviation: Tex. Att'y Gen.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.