Case Information
*1 OFFICE OFTHEATI’ORNEY GENERALOFTEXAS AUSTIN
EonorabLo Jmaa b. Ellday~
nlr.Otbr
mtor Xrani3portatlon Dlrision
iiailroad Coramiesion of Texar
Au8 tin, Texas
324 ord.er2,
one dfmyine tlie ccntraot cerrler application and tkie other denying the oormon carrier a~p,plIcatloh. ..nLd appealed to the Giatriat court or irctvis County, Texas, trozn the order denying the contract oerrier appfIoa.tIon, on tha ground &hat th6 hailroad CoaaaIreIon had, on harob 99, 1934, Isruad a valid order granting [8] contract osrrier psrmlt to imld. fn thle contention, =:ald was nuatalned. Smith YE. dald Transrer k 2torage Co., Xno., 07 :;. h. (Ed) 991.
%ald,‘e operations were Intersteta, and m4x.m tha Fadsral Lotor Carrier Lew wa5 petsed, i.aid op~iledto Interstate Conrasrce Conmission, 81~0, in the alternative, for a Contract Carrier ZemIt or a Ccm- non Carrier Cartifioate. The Xnteretate Commercle CommIasIon granted to gald a Cormon Carrier Certlil- cate.
Weld has, eince 1995, been optratIng under the auth- ority of Injunction of the Travis County DIstrIot Court end It.6 Federal certltloate. The iiaIlroa6 Cods- elon is raw willing to lasus to Kald Its oontreot ear- rler pcrmIt and truck plates. ?irald la wIllIng to 8ubmIt to the polioe power of tho Railroad CommIssIon but wantends that as his oparatione &aye been Interstate the Reilroad CommIaalon*a authorfty was alway lltited to the question of the use of Texas roads by'kald and only lnaldenfally, IS at all, to t&e oharaoter of hIcr smvioa. 3% contends further that the Interstate Con- merae Co,mmlesIon has jurllrdiction over the.oharaoter of his aervIae, and hrin& found that he Ie a oommon carrier; and the Railroad CoamI8sIon and the Courta of this state having found that 'he Ie entitled to use the highways, than Railroad Comrnisslon should lenua to him, ae evidenae of his right to u80 tbs highway, a aomao~ carrier osrtifioate and oommon plates. aarrlar
*~ueatfon: Should the ~eifroed Comise~on under the Pacts ~abore set forth aa authorization for tho uao of the rotidle ieaue to Leld a common carrier oertiiieate, or nhould It Isnue a aontraat aarrler p~rmIt?~
In tha case of %iOEp~on 5'8. MaDonald, 93 Psd. (Ed) 937, osrtlorarl denied, it was held that tha motor aarrler act of 1938 passe% by the 74th Congrese had not aupexsedsd Artiole Qllb, *3 Eon. 36LXb6 b. Kildoy, I%@ 3
vemon*r Civil Ltatutea, being tbe Texas Comon Carrier sotor LSW, ill6Of&W 46 th6 POWOF Of the klbO& MrfleF CO~:1661OII Of ~~~~ to invastl~ete and pa6e upon the sufflcl4noy OU&F highway tO stand the added tF6fiiO burden i6 OonOeFQd. m0 Aosttn axid $;a00 Carts 0r tbe part;-
0r Ciril Appeal6 have followed the bou$rig Of the !fCnOMld C6QO iSl a XKl&haF Or Oa608, in BoaEe Of &bile the iiailroad COIPIG~B- &fob WFit6 Ot eFrOF Were denied. #loo, 16 WithCUt jUri6diOtiOQ t0 inCtlh-0 intO the QU66tiOII Ot 00nranienoo and nnoessity upon the iil+g of en application ror 6 0ert~ficata or pox-mit to do purely an Interstate bU6in666, it dill lies w&thin the sound dlsoretion ot the riallmad COG- fia#ion to grant or deny such a oertiiioate or.per&it depending ppon the oonditlon of the partioufar highway sought to be u66d in soeh operation. Fran the Wats outlined by you, it appear6 XaU Tren6rer &. Storage Co. 1x10. reoeired iron the Hailroad Corrri66iOn a OOntraOt a6rrieF peX'V&t. %&it thereafter th0 Ilailroad Co60alsaion attempted to resalnd the Order grantlrig th6 pmn.%t. 521s Court of Civil Appeal6 held that the latter order war maid, lsaving the OFder gF6ntfng ths peF5liti In Pull toroe and eireiot. The judgmnt OS the wutt va6 such a~ to peridt hti to therclaiter-operate under 6uah permit. The grurtlng of the oontmot oaxvi~er pezxit married wltb it a finding that the high- W8)a WQUld Stand the add6d tFSiffi0 bur46n which WOUld fOllti iF= the OpQmtiOn Of thS pBFIE% A 0omon orrrior Qotor oar- FIEF Ootilflaata la a broader 6UthOFity than a contrafd and would authoriao a bOEitieF burden Upan zanier persIt hi&hut&ye. The Eailraad Coannir6ion baring g;ranted to "bald Tnnefer and Storage Conrpany, Inc. oaly the authority to ~66 the OOlltmOt6 iQVOlVd tn the hi@lW6ytB 6UrbifOiMtiY t0 fulfill the applioat2on and pemlt and tke'oourtS havine done no mm th6~ to 6cmfim thet petit it to3&~6 that m0h oonoern ha6 netef obtained from Golaeireion or fawt the oourte 6x1~ auth- his u6e of the blghmafs from that OS a contr60t ority to orpanb aamler to thst of ooxaon earrlsr. Tb6 60tfon of the IQttlF6ttlte CO&meroe Oolnnfesion Iti the promiNw¶ baa BO legal braring upon tam wlonttan. The operator bae a dontmut 0aFri8r psFmit.
x0 objeotfon ~16 86~0 to the gmntfng of another parleit iden- t&tal with that one ior puFpa60 Of ooJlftmLfng the BeQ4.
BOWOY~Y, the Go~!u~i66ion 6bouM Bat iesue to the oon~srn a wim- aOn @UF~UF aertlffoate exospt and, ualeaa tt be upon another and diffareat application.
roure very truly