-
THER'PI'OKNEY GENERAL Q,P-XAS PRICE DANIEL ATTORNEYGENeRAL Hon. W. J. Murray, Jr., Chairman Railroad Commission of Texas Austin, Texas Opinion No. V-1053 Res Valfdity of the Commls- slon'a order of February 8, 1950, entered in Motor Carrfer Docket No. 3658, upon an applicationto divide certificateNo. Dear Commissioner: 3079. The questions presented In yaw recent let- ter relating to the validity of the Commission'sorder entered February 8, 1950, denying an applicationto divide common carrier motor carrier ceptiflcateNo. 3079 have been carefully consldered. A copy of the order In question was sub- mitted with your request, and under the facts you aska "1. Is the Comml~siow~sorder of February 8, 9950, entered fn Docket No. 3658, a valid order? "2. Comfelerfngthe _^terms ..of^Cep- ^ tfffcate No. 307g0 8s we&l a5 we commm- sfon@s OPdePs of 1940 upon whfch t;hfe ceptfffcate is based, does the Railroad Coarwfsafon have legal authority to grant the applicatfonof the receiver to divide CertificateNo. 3079 and sell Its divided portlons to Southern Pacific and to Santa Fe, and to pant the applicationsof Southern Pacfflc and Santa Fe to bu such portions (Dockets A-1211 and A-l.212 T7 (See paragraph 2 of Comm%ssfonQ&s order dated FebPuaz=y8, 1950, for the .langPlage of CertfffcateNo. 3079, dated July 2, 1940.) Hon. W. J. Murray, Jr., page 2 (V-1053) “3. If lt be determined that the Railroad Commlsslon hae authority to grant the referenced application a~ prayed for, then uhat terms and phraseology should be employed In the Commlsslon’e orders ac- complishing that purpose? “4. I,f it be determined that the Commleslon has authority to grant the ref- erenced appllaatlons a8 prayed for, then doea the Railroad Commission have any au- thorlty in granting the applicationa to impose any restrictions (not presently ex- isting In Certificate No. 3079) upon that portlon of the certificate granted to Southern Pacific, or upon that portlon of the certificate granted to Santa Fet ”. . . . “5. Would Airline Freight Lines, Ino., have the right to Interchange freight at Rosenberg under the aertlflcate dated July 2, 19401” The question of the Commleslon~e authority to divide an existing certificate was before the Sup- reme Court of Texas in B. & N.T. Motor Freight Lines v. Johnson, 140 Texo 166 166 S W 26 78 (1942) . wrft- ing for tse court* the l&e Chiif’Justlce Alexander announced that the Commlsslon hala authority to author- ize the dlvlalon of a route covered by a certlflcate Into two or more parts and approve the sale of less than the whole thereof and said8 “Since the dlvlslon of an exletlng certfflaate into two parts fs, ln effeot, the equivalent of the granting of two new certificates, and slnoe two short routes might not adequately serve the pub110 ln- tereste in the same manner aa one through route over the name territory, it would BeepLthat in order to authorize the dlvi- slon of the existing oertlftcate into two parts and the sale of one of the parts the Combdon, after statutory notice to the pub110 and all interested parties and a .: . pubB%c &ear%mg, ahaounld f%mt3that the ap- p,rovaBof the d9vfsloa of such certfflcate and sale of a pap& theaoeofwl%l not lmpafr tae serv%c@ %c the publfe." From thfw hoMiii of th@ coot It Is clear to u<hat the pawep of the C``813fsslon to authoplze the dl?&t&m of a ee~t%fieate and approve the sale of por- %%om fAemoT %o d%ffe~a-& pu*ce8jtsae~speats upon a find- fng of fact &hat sueI-8 d%vfs%onnand safe "wfP1 not Impair the eer'vfee$0 me publfa." sh,ee the ~omiseiom fo``3 ,thatthe afm4f0n of %he ce~%%~%e%feand the sale of po2~tPonathersof wouna remilt im a aeerea5e of eerv%ae with respect to cie~%a%inpof~ts on the lpoute%``Bved and aw Increase as %o other, l-8fast crux= op%m%onathat the Commlssfon fs wfthout power &O authoz?lee t&e dltv%us%on ax-xl approve the sale 0P"pc~tioma of %be ce~%%8%ca%e%;cr dffferewt pup- chasers0 Any en2a~gementof a~thog~ltywould have to be baeed on a heaping a82adete~m%nationepponthe question Hon. W. J. Murray, Jr., page 4 (V-1053) or Issue of convenlenoe and necessity. Sunse% Express v. Gulf C; k S.F. Ry.,
154 S.W.2d 860, m (Tex. Clv. App. 1941, error ref., w.0.a.). We therefore answer your first question In the afflmnatlve and your second In the negative, and In view OS our opinion In response to these questions, we do not deem it appropriateto answer your third and fourth questions. While It Is undoubted that oommon carrier motor carriera operating under certifloatesof conven- lenoe and necessity without restrlotlons have~the,rlght to and do lnterahangefreight In dally operations,the rule Is otherwise where a carrlerfs certificatecontains restrlotlonsand llmlts the service that may be rendered. As we construe Certificate No. 3079, It Is clearly one restricting the scope of operations that may be conducted under It. It does not authorize the per- formanoe of every act or servlae which m%ght ordinarily be performed by a common carrier motor carrier operating between the termlnl. Rosenberg Is not an unrestrioted service point and the language of the cert%f%oatelndl- oates no purpoae on the part of the Commission to au- thorlse the Interchangeof tie%ght at that point. The oontrars aDpears from the llm1ted acope of author%ts evldenoed a$ the cart% C. deS.F. RyaI,supPa; 1% follows that our m-tswe~ to yaw f%Pth quea- tlon Is a negative one, The order of the Ra%l.rwC.Comfs- slon of Febmary 8, 1950, enter& %n Docket No. 3658, Is a va$%d order and the Commlsslon %a without authority to authop- lee dfvfslon of”the ceptfffcate, H. & N. T, Motor Freight Lfnes vI Johnson,
7 Tex. 166166 S W 2d 7U \m)-Riller v. m, 161 S,W.;d’501 (Tex, C%i. A 1944, error ref, n.p.e.). Common car~le~p~otor carrier aertfffcateNo. 3079 does not au- thorise lnterohangeof freight at Rosenberg. -’ - Hon. W. J. Murray, Jr., page 5 (V-1053) Sunset Express v. Gulf C. & S.F. Ry., 154 S W 2d 860 862 (Tex. Clv. App. 1941,'eLor rei. w.0.m.). Very truly youra APPROVED: PRICE DANIEL Charles D. Mathews Attorney Qeneral Executive Assistant Price Daniel BYkd J d-&CL -. Attorney General Everett Hutchinson EHrdb
Document Info
Docket Number: V-1053
Judges: Price Daniel
Filed Date: 7/2/1950
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 2/18/2017