Warren v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad

28 S.E.2d 505, 223 N.C. 843, 1944 N.C. LEXIS 267
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedJanuary 12, 1944
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 28 S.E.2d 505 (Warren v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad) 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
Warren v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad, 28 S.E.2d 505, 223 N.C. 843, 1944 N.C. LEXIS 267 (N.C. 1944).

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

The matter here sought to be litigated is pending before the Utilities Commission, with adequate remedy of appeal by any affected party. C. S., 1097. Even if it be conceded that equity might intervene in certain circumstances, 43 Am. Jur., 720, the present showing is not sufficient to invoke its aid.

As a general rule, where a matter is committed to an administrative agency, one who fails to exhaust the remedies provided before such *845 agency will not be beard in equity to challenge the validity of its orders. Garysburg Mfg. Co. v. Comrs. of Pender County, 196 N. C., 744, 147 S. E., 284; Mfg. Co. v. Comrs., 189 N. C., 99, 126 S. E., 114; Sykes v. Jenny Wren Co., 64 App. D. C., 379, 78 E. (2d), 729; Switchman's Union of N. A. v. Nat. Mediation Bd.,.U. S., ., 88 Law Ed., Adv. Op. 89.

It is not contended that the order of the Utilities Commission is ultra vires, as was the case in S. v. Scott, 182 N. C., 865, 109 S. E., 789, cited and relied upon by the plaintiff. Nor is it alleged that the Commission acted arbitrarily or invaded any of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. 28 Am. Jur., 242. If erroneous or unreasonable, the remedy is by appeal.

In Chicago v. O’Connell, 278 Ill., 591, 116 N. E., 210, it was said: “The statutory method of reviewing the reasonableness of orders of the Commission is exclusive.” See Utilities Com. v. Great Southern Trucking Co., ante, 687.

Plaintiff has shown no ground for equitable relief. The temporary restraining order was properly dissolved.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Sinodis v. STATE BD. OF ALCOHOLIC CON., MALT BEV. DIV.
128 S.E.2d 587 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1962)
City of Winston-Salem v. Winston-Salem City Coach Lines, Inc.
95 S.E.2d 510 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1956)
Ponder v. North Carolina State Board of Elections
65 S.E.2d 377 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1951)
Atlantic Greyhound Corp. v. North Carolina Utilities Commission
47 S.E.2d 473 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1948)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
28 S.E.2d 505, 223 N.C. 843, 1944 N.C. LEXIS 267, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/warren-v-atlantic-coast-line-railroad-nc-1944.