Central Freight Lines v. C. & S. Motor Freight Lines
| Decision Date | 23 February 1939 |
| Docket Number | No. 2125.,2125. |
| Citation | 125 S.W.2d 615 |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
| Parties | CENTRAL FREIGHT LINES, Inc., v. C. & S. MOTOR FREIGHT LINES, Inc. |
Appeal from District Court, Johnson County; O. B. McPherson, Judge.
Suit by the C. & S. Motor Freight Lines, Inc., against the Central Freight Lines, Inc., to enjoin the defendant from picking up and transporting for hire freight originating in Cleburne and destined for Fort Worth, Dallas and intermediate points. Judgment for plaintiff, and the defendant appeals.
Judgment reversed and rendered.
Rogers & Scott and W. E. Cureton, all of Waco, for appellant.
Maynard F. Robinson and Irwin T. Ward, both of Cleburne, for appellee.
This suit was prosecuted by C. & S. Motor Freight Lines, Inc., against Central Freight Lines, Inc., to enjoin the defendant from picking up and transporting for hire over the public roads of Texas freight originating in Cleburne and destined for Fort Worth, Dallas and intermediate points and vice versa. A trial on the merits before the court without a jury resulted in judgment for plaintiff as prayed. The defendant appealed.
The record discloses that in 1936 Archie Tyler owned two certificates of convenience and necessity issued by the Railroad Commission of Texas authorizing him to transport freight for hire by motor over the public roads of Texas between Dallas, Fort Worth and Cleburne and other points, and a third one authorizing him to so operate between Cleburne and Glen Rose. At that time Archie Tyler owned still another certificate, being certificate No. 2638, which was not included in the assignment to Central Freight Lines, Inc., hereinafter referred to. On March 13, 1936, Tyler entered into a written contract with Central Freight Lines, Inc., by which, for a consideration, and subject to the approval of the Railroad Commission, he agreed to convey and assign to the Central Freight Lines, Inc., the three certificates of convenience and necessity first above referred to. Said contract of sale, however, contained the following specific limitations: "Central Freight Lines, Inc., shall not, so long as Archie Tyler operates from Dallas and Fort Worth into Cleburne over his present routes, pick up or deliver Dallas and Fort Worth freight." On March 16, 1936, Tyler signed and presented to the Railroad Commission a written application for approval of the sale and transfer to Central Freight Lines, Inc., of the three certificates mentioned in said contract. Said application represented that the sale had been made in good faith and on its face it appeared to be an outright sale of the certificates without any limitation whatever. On the same day the Railroad Commission entered an order approving the sale and transfer of said certificates. Said order recited a finding that the sale and transfer of the certificates had been made in good faith and contained the following specific provision: "The purchaser of these certificates is authorized to operate in the same manner, with the same number of trucks, and on the same schedules as heretofore authorized under these certificates." The order so entered by the Railroad Commission does not appear to have ever been rescinded or altered in any manner. The Central Freight Lines, Inc., as holders of said certificates, was engaged in transporting freight under said certificates over the routes covered thereby and was picking up and delivering Dallas and Fort Worth freight contrary to the above quoted limitation contained in the written contract at the time the injunction above referred to was applied for and granted. Prior to the trial of this suit Archie Tyler had transferred his fourth certificate, to-wit, No. 2638, to C. & S. Motor Freight Lines, Inc., and said corporation was engaged in transporting freight between Dallas, Fort Worth and Cleburne and intermediate points at the time of the trial. Archie...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Railroad Commission v. A. E. McDonald Motor F. Lines
...county. It cannot be reviewed by an independent suit brought in some other county in the state. Central Freight Lines, Inc., v. C. & S. Motor Freight Lines, Inc., Tex. Civ.App., 125 S.W.2d 615. It is further contended that the order here sought to be reviewed is a "temporary restraining ord......
-
General Mills v. Steele
...to the Commission, and in which they agreed to pay the legal rates, and that the case is ruled by Central Freight Lines v. C & S Motor Freight Lines, Tex.Civ.App., 125 S.W.2d 615. There the court held ineffective a private agreement which, as here, was not submitted to the Commission. I thi......