Hilburn v. Herrin Transp. Co.
| Decision Date | 04 October 1946 |
| Docket Number | No. 13736.,13736. |
| Parties | HILBURN et al. v. HERRIN TRANSP. CO. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Dallas County; Jno. A. Rawlins, Judge.
Suit by Herrin Transportation Company against Sam Hilburn and others for a declaratory judgment, construction of Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 6675a—16, and an injunction against arrest of drivers of plaintiff's trucks not carrying Texas license plates. From an interlocutory judgment granting a temporary injunction, defendants appeal.
Order set aside and judgment rendered dissolving injunction.
Grover Sellers, Atty. Gen., Douglas E. Bergman and Geo. W. Barcus, Assts. Atty. Gen., all of Austin, for appellants.
Phinney, Romick & Hallman, of Dallas, for appellee.
This suit was brought by Herrin Transportation Company seeking a declaratory judgment and construction of Article 6675a—16, Vernon's Annotated Statutes; also for injunction against Homer Garrison, Director, and other officials of the State Highway Department to restrain them from arresting drivers of appellee's trucks not carrying Texas license plates; charging illegality of such arrests, in that, by virtue of said statute and the reciprocity agreement made pursuant thereto between designated officers of Louisiana and Texas, that appellee's vehicles based, domiciled and registered in the State of Louisiana were entitled to travel over the highways of Texas in transportation of interstate freight without paying of further excise fees, i.e., for Texas registration or license. Restraining order was granted ex parte, followed upon hearing by temporary injunction restraining aforesaid highway personnel as prayed, from which interlocutory judgment an appeal has been duly effected.
The material facts were either stipulated or appear without dispute. Appellee, as petitioner, alleged that it was a corporation, duly incorporated under the laws of Texas, with principal office and place of business in Houston, Harris County; maintaining branch offices in Dallas, Fort Worth, Beaumont and Orange; that it had a permit to do business in the State of Louisiana, with branch offices in New Orleans, Lake Charles, Shreveport, Baton Rouge and Lafayette, having maintained such Louisiana offices for more than thirty days; and that it was engaged in the transportation of motor freight for hire over the highways of the States of Texas and Louisiana. Further allegations were that it operated some 48 truck tractors and 66 truck trailers over all routes and had purchased Texas license plates, paying required fees on those vehicles that were permanently based and domiciled in the State of Texas, registering the remainder of its vehicles in the State of Louisiana where same were based and domiciled; and that those vehicles based, domiciled and registered in the State of Louisiana, on trips made into Texas, were solely engaged in transportation of interstate commerce.
It was further agreed that Herrin Transportation Company operates under authority "of the Interstate Commerce Commission in interstate commerce between Texas and Louisiana points, and transports intrastate commerce in Texas and Louisiana points"; "that it has obtained from the Railroad Commission of Texas and Public Service Commission of Louisiana authority issued by both commissions to operate its vehicles on the highways of the State of Louisiana and the State of Texas"; that appellee's only intrastate business in Texas, as authorized by the Railroad Commission, is from Houston to Beaumont, Orange and Port Arthur; and that it has authority from the Public Service Commission of Louisiana to engage in intrastate commerce over the same routes serving interstate commerce as authorized by the Interstate Commerce Commission.
R. T. Herrin, president of appellee corporation, testified that the concern had been doing business in Texas some fifteen years, all of the time operating between Louisiana and Texas; that the total monthly tonnage moving between said states was about five million pounds, with twelve to fifteen million pounds per month moving wholly within the borders of Louisiana; that appellee had warehouses, delivery trucks and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Tustin, 7753
...4 N.J. 346, 72 A.2d 851, 16 A.L.R.2d 1407; Western Express Co. v. Wallace, 144 Ohio St. 612, 60 N.E.2d 312; Hilburn v. Herrin Transportation Co., Tex.Civ.App., 197 S.W.2d 149. (Digest of all three of these cases will be found at 16 A.L.R.2d 1414, annotation.) The cases are not too helpful, ......
-
Estate of Morris
...to do so, or that it is necessary to imply the agreement to effectuate the purpose of the agreement made. See, e. g., Hilburn v. Herrin Transp. Co., 197 S.W.2d 149, 152 (Tex.Civ.App. Dallas 1946, no writ). But, here, the undisputed evidence is that there was no agreement at all for the disp......
-
Ingram Freezers v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co.
...that such covenants were clearly contemplated by the parties or are necessary to effect purposes of contract. Hillburn v. Herrin Transp. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 197 S.W.2d 149.' Appellant argues that the provision in the above quoted excerpt from the September 14, 1962 deed from Santa Fe to the ......
-
D. C. Hall Co. v. State Highway Commission, 5394
...the benefits to be available, such person must be a resident of one of the states and a non-resident of the other. Hilburn v. Herrin Transp. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 197 S.W.2d 149. Appellant further contends that there is a distinction between the 'corporate residence' it admits having acquired ......