Sweetheart Lake, Inc. v. Carolina Power & Light Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Sweetheart Lake, Inc. v. Carolina Power & Light Co.

189 S.E. 785, 211 N.C. 269, 1937 N.C. LEXIS 57

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedFebruary 24, 1937

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 189 S.E. 785 (Sweetheart Lake, Inc. v. Carolina Power & Light Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sweetheart Lake, Inc. v. Carolina Power & Light Co., 189 S.E. 785, 211 N.C. 269, 1937 N.C. LEXIS 57 (N.C. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Qonnor, J.

If on the facts admitted in the pleadings and at the trial of this action, the plaintiffs had a legal right to the service which they requested of the defendant, the Superior Court of Moore County had original jurisdiction of the cause of action alleged in the complaint, and there is error in the judgment, in effect, dismissing the action; on the other hand, if the plaintiffs had no legal right to such service, in the absence of an order of the Utilities Commission requiring the defendant to furnish such service to the plaintiffs, upon such terms as the said Commission shall have determined, there is no error in the judgment, and the same should be affirmed.

We are of opinion that on the facts appearing in the record the plaintiffs had a legal right to the service which they requested of the defendant, and that the refusal of the defendant to furnish such service at the request of the plaintiffs was wrongful, because such refusal was a breach of a duty which the defendant owed to the plaintiffs, whether contractual or statutory. Eor that reason, the judgment in this action must be reversed.

When a public service corporation, engaged in business as a public utility, has furnished service to a customer through a period of years, the customer is entitled to a continuance of such service, or in the event of a temporary suspension of such service, for good cause, to its restoration, without having first obtained an order to that effect from the State Utilities Commission. In such ease, the public service corporation has no legal right to refuse to continue or to restore such service without having first obtained an order to that effect from the State Utilities Commission. It is provided by statute that “upon finding that public convenience and necessity are no longer served, or that there is no reasonable probability of a utility realizing sufficient revenue from the service to meet its expenses, the Commission shall have power, after petition, notice, and hearing, to authorize by order any utility to abandon or reduce its service or facilities.” Sec. 32, ch. 307, Public Laws of N. C., 1933; N. 0. Code of 1935, sec. 1112 (32).

The judgment in this action is

Reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Qonnor, J.

If on the facts admitted in the pleadings and at the trial of this action, the plaintiffs had a legal right to the service which they requested of the defendant, the Superior Court of Moore County had original jurisdiction of the cause of action alleged in the complaint, and there is error in the judgment, in effect, dismissing the action; on the other hand, if the plaintiffs had no legal right to such service, in the absence of an order of the Utilities Commission requiring the defendant to furnish such service to the plaintiffs, upon such terms as the said Commission shall have determined, there is no error in the judgment, and the same should be affirmed.

We are of opinion that on the facts appearing in the record the plaintiffs had a legal right to the service which they requested of the defendant, and that the refusal of the defendant to furnish such service at the request of the plaintiffs was wrongful, because such refusal was a breach of a duty which the defendant owed to the plaintiffs, whether contractual or statutory. Eor that reason, the judgment in this action must be reversed.

When a public service corporation, engaged in business as a public utility, has furnished service to a customer through a period of years, the customer is entitled to a continuance of such service, or in the event of a temporary suspension of such service, for good cause, to its restoration, without having first obtained an order to that effect from the State Utilities Commission. In such ease, the public service corporation has no legal right to refuse to continue or to restore such service without having first obtained an order to that effect from the State Utilities Commission. It is provided by statute that “upon finding that public convenience and necessity are no longer served, or that there is no reasonable probability of a utility realizing sufficient revenue from the service to meet its expenses, the Commission shall have power, after petition, notice, and hearing, to authorize by order any utility to abandon or reduce its service or facilities.” Sec. 32, ch. 307, Public Laws of N. C., 1933; N. 0. Code of 1935, sec. 1112 (32).

The judgment in this action is

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

189 S.E. 785, 211 N.C. 269, 1937 N.C. LEXIS 57, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sweetheart-lake-inc-v-carolina-power-light-co-nc-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack