Railroad Commission of Tex. v. Roberdeau
| Decision Date | 17 October 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. A-3265,A-3265 |
| Parties | RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS et al. v. ROBERDEAU et al. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
H. S. Beard, Waco, A. M. Felts, Austin, Price Daniel, Atty. Gen., and Everett Hutchinson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioners.
Smith, Rotsch & Steakley, Austin, for respondents.
In these consolidated cases, the Austin Court of Civil Appeals reversing and rendering the judgment of the trial court, has held invalid several orders of the Railroad Commission of Texas relating to transfers and other proceedings concerning certain specialized motor carrier certificates. 239 S.W.2d 889, 895. The Attorney General of Texas and private parties adversely affected seek writ of error.
The original certificates, out of which the present proceedings arose, were issued without protest on the part of any party to the present proceedings some six or seven years before the latter were gebun. Each original certificate authorized transportation of the types of freight specified in § 5a of Art. 911b, Vernon's Tex.Civ.Stats.Ann., naming among others 'household goods, used office furniture and equipment'. During the above-mentioned years, but prior to 1950, all or some of these certificates were the subject matter of certain transfer orders or other orders of the Commission which we need not now consider. In or about the year 1950, the present proceedings were brought, being applications to the Commission to approve transfer of one or more of the certificates either as to the full privileges therein granted or as to the right to haul merely 'household goods, used office furniture and equipment' or to approve a 'split' and transfer of one or more, so as to vest in the transferee the privilege of hauling the particular articles named. The exact character of order respectively sought in each of the 1950 applications to the Commission is not an essential consideration, since the question at issue relates to the original certificates, upon which the validity of the 1950 proceedings necessarily depends. The 1950 applications were evidently made for the purpose of enabling the transferees or other beneficiaries of the requested orders to operate a substantial furniture moving business with Austin and Waco as bases in competition with the protestant-respondents, Roberdeau et al., who operate 'out of' those cities, respectively. The wording of the original certificates was such as to give the impression that other cities-Marble Falls and Groesbeck-were the respectively contemplated bases of operation thereunder, and such was, no doubt, the reason why respondents did not oppose them at the time. However, while these certificates thus defined the area, between which and the rest of Texas hauling was permitted, in terms of a radius of miles from Marble Falls and Groesbeck, respectively, they did not otherwise suggest that the holders or their assignees might not use Austin or Waco as bases of operations, should the latter be, as they were and are, within the prescribed radius of the other two cities, respectively.
A principal attack below on the orders in the 1950 proceedings was that the original...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alamo Express v. Union City Transfer
...v. Hovey Petroleum Co., supra; Thompson v. Railroad Commission, 1951, 150 Tex. 307, 240 S.W.2d 759, and Railroad Commission of Texas v. Roberdeau, 1951, 150 Tex. 506, 242 S.W.2d 881, to sustain their contention that the order of the Commission entered on May 13, 1954 is void. The order cond......
-
First Federal Sav. and Loan Ass'n v. Vandygriff
...brought for that purpose, even if they show on their face an absence of the required fact findings. Railroad Commission of Texas v. Roberdeau, 150 Tex. 506, 242 S.W.2d 881 (1951). Nevertheless, the earlier orders are not subject to direct attack either, for it is now impossible to bring a s......
-
Texas Liquor Control Bd. v. Attic Club, Inc.
...court cited Skates v. City of Paris, 363 S.W.2d 425 (Tex.Sup.1963) as controlling; reference was also made to Railroad Commission v. Roberdeau, 150 Tex. 506, 242 S.W.2d 881 (1951); Thompson v. Railroad Commission, 150 Tex. 307, 240 S.W.2d 759 (1951); and Thompson v. Hovey Petroleum Company,......
-
King's Estate, In re
...case is appropriate for the exercise of our powers to reverse and remand upon the application. Rule 483, Tex.Rules of Civ.Proc., Railroad Commission v. Roberdeau, Tex.Sup., 242 S.W.2d 881, 883, and decisions therein The judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals is reversed and the cause is rem......