{
  "id": 8547668,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ON RELATION OF THE BANKING COMMISSION, and FIRST-CITIZENS BANK & TRUST COMPANY v. BANK OF ROCKY MOUNT",
  "name_abbreviation": "State ex rel. Banking Commission v. Bank of Rocky Mount",
  "decision_date": "1971-08-04",
  "docket_number": "No. 7110SC213",
  "first_page": "112",
  "last_page": "116",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "12 N.C. App. 112"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "139 S.E. 2d 197",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1964,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "263 N.C. 224",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8568982
      ],
      "year": 1964,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/263/0224-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "160 S.E. 2d 735",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "273 N.C. 519",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8575725
      ],
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/273/0519-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "18 A.L.R. 2d 606",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R. 2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "168 S.E. 2d 33",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "275 N.C. 354",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8558771
      ],
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/275/0354-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 417,
    "char_count": 8763,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.566,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.3569366280911744e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6347275458916717
    },
    "sha256": "0ea4f49eea0c9772c3b1797edbc60041ff4d1eaaf379c3124d56ae2e16ed67ab",
    "simhash": "1:eeefe43a64aa0272",
    "word_count": 1449
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:50:27.087613+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Brock and Morris concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ON RELATION OF THE BANKING COMMISSION, and FIRST-CITIZENS BANK & TRUST COMPANY v. BANK OF ROCKY MOUNT"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HEDRICK, Judge.\nThe defendant protestant first assigns as error the ruling of the Banking Commission chairman that members of the Commission who had not heard all of the evidence and oral arguments could vote on the application of First-Citizens provided that those members had received transcripts of the proceedings prior to voting.\nIn Crawford v. Board of Education, 275 N.C. 354, 168 S.E. 2d 33 (1969), our Supreme Court stated:\n\u201cWhile there are some decisions reaching a contrary result upon specific statutes involved, and not as a matter of due process, it is generally held that an administrative decision is not invalid merely because an officer who was not present when the evidence was taken made or participated in the decision, provided he considers and acts upon the evidence received in his absence. See Annot. 18 A.L.R. 2d 606, and cases cited therein.\u201d\nThe appellant concedes in its brief that members of the Commission were furnished copies of the transcript of the hearings held on 23 July and 5 August 1970. Exhibit F indicates that the transcripts were mailed to the members on 23 August 1970, a month before the vote was taken on 23 September 1970. This assignment of error is overruled.\nBy assignment of error No. 2 the appellant contends that the Banking Commission committed prejudicial error by allowing one of its members, the Commissioner of Banks, to give his opinion during the hearing that the solvency of the protestant bank would not be materially affected by the approval of the application. Appellant argues first that the Commissioner was not tendered and accepted by the Commission as an expert witness. It is well settled that where there is sufficient evidence in the record to support a finding that the witness in question was an expert in his field, it will be presumed that the trial tribunal found the witness to be an expert, notwithstanding the absence of a specific finding to that effect. Mills, Inc. v. Terminal, Inc., 273 N.C. 519, 160 S.E. 2d 735 (1968), and cases cited therein. The record is replete with evidence that the witness is an expert in his field.\nThe appellant next argues that the witness was allowed to give his opinion without a proper foundation having been laid as the basis thereof. Before stating his opinion, the witness testified that it was based on \u201cinformation that we have available to us in the files, and based on the reports of examination that we make of this bank. ...\u201d\nIt should also be noted that the witness was called to testify by the Commission itself, and not by one of the parties; and that the protestant appellant was allowed to cross-examine the witness. For the reasons stated above, this assignment of error is overruled.\nAppellant\u2019s third assignment of error is as follows:\n\u201c3. To the sending of a newspaper article denominated Exhibit D entitled \u2018Statistics Covering Five-Year Period\u2014 Chamber Report Shows Strong Economic Growth Here,\u2019 to the Commission by mail, and the providing of a copy to each member of the Commission and consideration of such article by the Commission, for that these things were done without the knowledge of the protestant and in violation of G.S. \u00a7 143-318.\u201d\nThis assignment of error is not supported by a proper exception in the record. We are not directed to any place in the record which would indicate that the Commission ever received the article in question. Furthermore, assuming, arguendo, that the article was sent to the Commission, there is nothing in the record to indicate that the members of the Commission considered the article as stated by the appellant. This assignment of error is without merit.\nThe remainder of appellant\u2019s assignments of error deal primarily with its contention that the evidence is insufficient to support the findings and conclusions of the Commission that the branch bank applied for by First-Citizens is needed, and that its presence will not have a detrimental effect upon the solvency of existing banks in the community. G.S. 53-62 provides for the establishment of branch banks and reads in pertinent part: \u201cSuch approval shall not be given until he shall find (i) that the establishment of such branch or teller\u2019s window will meet the needs and promote the convenience of the community to be served by the bank, and (ii) that the probable volume of business and reasonable public demand in such community are sufficient to assure and maintain the solvency of said branch or teller\u2019s window and of the existing bank or banks in said community.\u201d\nIn a proceeding such as this, the administrative agency is the finder of fact, and its findings and conclusions will not be disturbed if supported by competent evidence, even though there may be evidence which would support contrary findings and conclusions. Campbell v. Board of Alcoholic Control, 263 N.C. 224, 139 S.E. 2d 197 (1964).\nWe have carefully reviewed the record and conclude that the findings of the Commission are supported by competent evidence, and that the findings, in turn, support the conclusions of law. The judgment of the superior court affirming the action of the State Banking Commission is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nJudges Brock and Morris concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HEDRICK, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Jordan, Morris and Hoke by John R. Jordan, Jr., and William R. Hoke for First-Citizens Bank & Trust Company, plaintiff appellee.",
      "Sanford, Cannon, Adams & McCullough by Hugh Cannon, E. D. Gaskins, Jr., and Richard G. Singer for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ON RELATION OF THE BANKING COMMISSION, and FIRST-CITIZENS BANK & TRUST COMPANY v. BANK OF ROCKY MOUNT\nNo. 7110SC213\n(Filed 4 August 1971)\n1. Administrative Law \u00a7 4; Banks and Banking \u00a7 1\u2014 decision by Banking Commission \u2014 members who have not heard all the evidence\nBanking Commission chairman properly ruled that members of the Commission who had not heard all of the evidence and oral arguments could vote on an application to establish a branch bank provided those members had received transcripts of the proceedings prior to voting.\n2. Evidence \u00a7 48\u2014 failure to find that witness is an expert\nThe Banking Commission did not err in allowing one of its members, the Commissioner of Banks, to give his opinion that the solvency of the protestant bank would not be materially affected by the approval of plaintiff\u2019s application to establish a branch bank, notwithstanding the Commissioner was not found to be an expert witness, where there is sufficient evidence in the record to show that the witness is an expert.\n3. Banks and Banking \u00a7 1; Evidence \u00a7 49\u2014 foundation for opinion testimony\nSufficient foundation was laid for opinion testimony by the Commissioner of Banks that establishment of a branch bank by plaintiff would not materially affect the solvency of the protestant bank when the Commissioner testified that his opinion was based on \u201cinformation that we have available to us in the files, and based on the reports of examination that we make of this bank.\u201d\n4. Banks and Banking \u00a7 1\u2014 contention unsupported by record\nProtestant bank\u2019s contention that a newspaper article was sent by mail to each member of the Banking Commission and considered by the Commission in passing upon an application to establish a branch bank is unsupported by the record.\n5. Banks and Banking \u00a7 1\u2014 establishment of branch bank \u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nThe evidence was sufficient to support findings and conclusions of the Banking Commission that the branch bank applied for by plaintiff is needed, and that its presence will not have a detrimental effect upon the solvency of existing banks in the community. G.S. 53-62.\nAppeal by defendant, Bank of Eocky Mount, from Clark, Judge, 3 December 1970 Session of Superior Court held in Wake County.\nOn 19 September 1969, First-Citizens Bank & Trust Company filed an application to establish a branch bank in Eocky Mount, N. C. The application was opposed by existing banks in the community, one of which is the defendant Bank of Eocky Mount. On 30 October 1969, the Commissioner of Banks approved the application. Upon review of the approval by the Banking Commission, facts were found and conclusions of law entered on 21 January 1970 which approved and allowed the application. The protestant banks appealed to the Superior Court of Wake County, and on 1 May 1970, Bailey, Judge, sitting as an appellate court, remanded the application to the Banking Commission for the taking of additional evidence. After taking additional evidence, the Commission on 23 September 1970 made findings of fact and conclusions of law whereby it once again approved the application. The defendant Bank of Eocky Mount appealed to the Superior Court of Wake County.\nFrom a judgment of Clark, Judge, affirming the Commission\u2019s findings and conclusions, the defendant appealed to this Court.\nJordan, Morris and Hoke by John R. Jordan, Jr., and William R. Hoke for First-Citizens Bank & Trust Company, plaintiff appellee.\nSanford, Cannon, Adams & McCullough by Hugh Cannon, E. D. Gaskins, Jr., and Richard G. Singer for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0112-01",
  "first_page_order": 138,
  "last_page_order": 142
}