Houston & North Texas Motor Freight Lines v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 11 November 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 7959.,7959. |
| Citation | 166 S.W.2d 78 |
| Parties | HOUSTON & NORTH TEXAS MOTOR FREIGHT LINES et al. v. JOHNSON et al. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Carl L. Phinney, of Dallas, and Looney & Clark, Everett L. Looney, and Chas. F. Herring, all of Austin, for appellants.
Culbertson, Morgan, Christopher & Bailey and T. S. Christopher, all of Fort Worth, H. Grady Chandler, of Austin, Locke, Locke, Dyer & Purnell and Adair Dyer, all of Dallas, Gerald C. Mann, Atty. Gen., and Geo. W. Barcus and Glenn Lewis, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellees.
W. A. Johnson was the owner of a common carrier motor certificate authorizing him to operate a motor line over the highways of this State, from Dallas, through Fort Worth, to Rising Star. He applied to the Railroad Commission for premission to divide this certificate so as to authorize him to operate two routes — one to run from Dallas to Forth Worth, and the other from Fort Worth to Rising Star — and for an approval of the sale to the Southwestern Transportation Company of that portion of the certificate which permitted him to operate from Dallas to Fort Worth. The application was granted by the Railroad Commission, and on appeal to the district court the ruling of the Commission was sustained. The judgment of the district court was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals. 159 S.W.2d 905.
The record discloses that the application in question was never considered nor passed on by the Railroad Commission as a body at a meeting held for that purpose. After the application was filed an examiner conducted a hearing and made his report. The examiner then took the record to Mr. Smith, Chairman of the Commission, and he noted thereon his approval of the application. The record was then carried to the office of Colonel Thompson, another member of the Commission, and he made the same notation. Mr. Sadler, the third member of the Commission, took no part in the consideration of the application. Commissioners Smith and Thompson did not meet for the purpose of passing on the application, but each of them considered and passed upon it separately and apart from the other. Mr. Sadler had no notice that either of them had the matter under consideration. From the above it is clear that the application was never considered nor passed upon by the Commission acting as a body at a stated meeting, or one properly called, and of which all the members of the Commission had notice or an opportunity to attend.
In the case of M. R. & M. S. Webster v. Texas & Pacific Motor Transport Co., 166 S.W.2d 75, this day decided, we held that in order for an order of the Railroad Commission to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Skjonsby Truck Line, Inc., Application of
...all of the parts. See Eagle Motor Lines v. Alabama Public Service Com'n, 343 So.2d 767 (Ala.1977); Houston & North Texas Motor Freight Lines v. Johnson, 140 Tex. 166, 166 S.W.2d 78 (1942); State v. Washington Public Service Commission, 54 Wash.2d 382, 340 P.2d 784 (1959). See generally Anno......
-
State ex rel. Philipp Transit Lines, Inc. v. Public Service Commission
...75 (1942), Carroll v. Alabama Public Service Commission, 281 Ala. 559, 206 So.2d 364 (1968), Houston & North Texas Motor Freight Lines, Inc. v. Johnson, 140 Tex. 166, 166 S.W.2d 78 (1942), Terre Haute Gas Corp. v. Johnson, 221 Ind. 499, 45 N.E.2d 484, 48 N.E.2d 455 (1942), and Paola & F. R.......
-
Meador-Brady Management Corp. v. Texas Motor Vehicle Com'n
...members acting separately. Webster v. Texas Pac. Motor Transp., 166 S.W.2d 75, 76-77 (Tex.1942); Houston & N. Tex. Motor Freight Lines v. Johnson, 166 S.W.2d 78, 79 (Tex.1942). Generally, if a quorum is present, an action by a majority of the quorum binds the agency. Webster, 166 S.W.2d at ......
-
Krug v. Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, 16524.
...Did deceased commit suicide?" 3 34 T.J. 457; Webster v. Texas & Pacific, 140 Tex. 131, 166 S.W.2d 75; Houston & North Texas Motor Freight Lines v. Johnson, 140 Tex. 166, 166 S.W.2d 78; Sanders v. Midstates Oil Corp., Tex.Civ. App., 166 S.W.2d 4 As pertinent here, these are: "Art 3.45, subd.......
-
Who Owns the Texas Sky? An Analysis of Wind Rights in Texas
...it. 33 27. Houston & North Tex. Motor Freight Lines v. Johnson, 159 S.W.2d 905, 907 (Tex. Civ. App. 1941), rev’d on other grounds , 166 S.W.2d 78 (Tex. 1942). 28. Averyt v. Grande, Inc., 717 S.W.2d 891, 894 (Tex. 1986) (“‘Land’ includes the surface of the earth and everything over and under......