This will acknowledge receipt of your request made~to UI) Vhl@,is as follows:

"A copy qf s proposed lease to be used by thetruckers'in the Lower Rio Grande Valley'in the transportation of cotton to various points tbrougbout the Valley and/or ihe Port of Brownsville in Caraaron Countg;Texas, Is attached hereto.

've respactfully request an opinionon t&is at V0ur earliest convenience; however,in our judgment this icr only an; attempt to evade the Motor Carrier Law."

In reply thereto, this lie d@ advise thata contract practically the same, whit oertain exceptions, whi&are immaterial for the purpose 6f.this opinion, was involved in the case of Anderson-Clayton Company v. The State,62 S. W. (2d) X7, and 82 S. W. (26) 941. .I

71: 'he first opinion in the casea above mentimed, the Commission of Appeals vas asked in the third queetion there submitted, the folloWin&:

"3. Were the &ose-petitloner,s operating the lease trucks for oompanaation or hire under provisiona of Chapter 27'7, Acts of the &nd Legislature, known as House Bill ,335?”

TO the question propounded the Court made thle direct reply:

'She Third question .cert;ified presents a question of fact and not of law." (Underscoring ouris)

31. Walton D. Hood, Page 2 O-1221

P*- -, i?..C. i~skT!e.~“.~ here submitted is subject, under proper pleadings, to an expl;iratlou of what is actually taktig piece.

Cor~seqzut.ly tke trial court or the jury hearing :.the facts proven would 3 .'--rrtiae the issue, after tb.e evidence has been heard. ,..e UC _ -

'kexfore, it is impossible, for this Department, without knowing the facts, co ;zss '~jon the question 8s to whether the contract submitted is an nttemp? ,:o evade the Motor Carrier law or not.

Yours very truly,

AT.COm fXKEXAL~CFTExAS

s/ Gee. S. Eerry

BY Geo. S . Berry

Assistant