State ex rel. Utilities Commission v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
| Decision Date | 02 December 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 238,238 |
| Citation | 78 S.E.2d 780,238 N.C. 701 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. UTILITIES COMMISSION v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
B. F. Aycock, J. Russell Kirby, Fremont, Dees & Dees, Goldsboro, for Town of Fremont, appellee.
Murray Allen, R. P. Upchurch, Raleigh, for defendant appellant.
The appellant, Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, in excepting to the judgment of the Superior Court from which this appeal is taken, enumerates and sets forth several grounds upon which it contends that error occurred in the court below. All of them come to this, that, upon consideration of the whole record, the orders of the Utilities Commission are unreasonable, and are unsupported by competent, material and substantial evidence.
The statutes governing procedure before the Utilities Commission prescribe the rules and extent of review on appeal from an order of the commission. The statute, G.S. S 62-26.10 provides that, on such appeal to Superior Court, the court shall review the proceeding without a jury; that such review shall be confined to the record as certified by the commission to thecourt; and that the court may reverse or modify the decision of the commission if the substantial rights of the appellants have been prejudiced because the commission's findings, inferences, conclusions or decisions are unsupported by competent, material and substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted.
And this statute also provides that 'Upon an appeal to the superior court * * * any * * * finding, determination, or order made by the commission under the provisions of this chapter, shall be prima facie just and reasonable.' See State exrel. Utilities Comm. v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 235 N.C. 273, 69 S.E.2d 502, 503.
Moreover, it is provided by statute G.S. § 62-39 that the Utilities Commission has power to require all transportation companies to establish and maintain all such public service facilities and conveniences as may be reasonable and just. And in State ex rel. Utilities Comm. v. Atlantic coast Line R. Co., supra, this Court said that 'the determination and order of the commission in the performance of this duty must be considered prima facie as reasonable and just', but that this 'does not preclude the transportation company affected from showing that the order was unsupported by competent, material and substantial evidence', citing Utilities Comm. v. Great Southern Trucking Co., 223 N.C....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Utilities Commission v. Duke Power Co.
...291 N.C. 424, 230 S.E.2d 647 (1976); Utilities Commission v. Coach Co., 261 N.C. 384, 134 S.E.2d 689 (1964); Utilities Commission v. R.R., 238 N.C. 701, 78 S.E.2d 780 (1953). III. Duke by this appeal seeks the ultimate reversal of the Commission's order which increased Duke's accumulated de......
-
State ex rel. Utilities Commission v. Intervenor Residents of Bent Creek/Mt. Carmel Subdivisions
...291 N.C. 424, 230 S.E.2d 647 (1976); Utilities Commission v. Coach Co., 261 N.C. 384, 134 S.E.2d 689 (1944); Utilities Commission v. R. R., 238 N.C. 701, 78 S.E.2d 780 (1953). This the Intervenor/Residents attempted to do before the Court of Appeals with regard to costs allocated to the Com......
-
State ex rel. Utilities Commission v. Southern Ry. Co., 457
...denying the railroad's petition for authority to discontinue agency service at Lucama; and, in State ex rel. Utilities Commission v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 238 N.C. 701, 78 S.E.2d 780, 783, this Court held the evidence sufficient to support the Commission's order denying the railroad's......
-
Alford v. Washington
... ... testing the sufficiency of a complaint to state a cause of action, when challenged by demurrer, ... Utilities Co., 200 N.C. 719, 158 S.E. 385, 386, it is said ... 51, 158 S.E. 840; Murray v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 218 N.C. 392, 11 S.E.2d 326; ... ...