{
  "id": 8613124,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Ex Rel. UTILITIES COMMISSION v. MARTEL MILLS CORPORATION",
  "name_abbreviation": "State ex rel. Utilities Commission v. Martel Mills Corp.",
  "decision_date": "1950-11-22",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "690",
  "last_page": "692",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "232 N.C. 690"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "112 S.E. 529",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "183 N.C. 617",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8657654
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/183/0617-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "84 S.E. 21",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "168 N.C. 16",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8656813
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/168/0016-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "119 N.C. 314",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8654949
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/119/0314-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 312,
    "char_count": 5605,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.49,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.71692941892529e-08,
      "percentile": 0.49363225423567164
    },
    "sha256": "e6d56e3829ece54ba24338a929ef229df8add1d70c08791ac823b0cab95e5287",
    "simhash": "1:92df69a487430837",
    "word_count": 926
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:42:59.145817+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Ex Rel. UTILITIES COMMISSION v. MARTEL MILLS CORPORATION."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BaeNhill, J.\nThe merit of this appeal is made to turn upon whether the Light Company is the original complainant in this proceeding. If so, the notice of appeal was ineffective for the reason it was not served. If not, then the giving of notice by mailing a copy thereof to the Light Company met the requirements of the statute.\nA public utility company may make complaint to the Utilities Commission respecting its rate structure. G.S. 62-24, 25. Interested parties may intervene, G.S. 62-24, and any party aggrieved by the final order \u2022of the Commission may appeal. G.S. 62-26.6. The party appealing must serve notice of its appeal upon the original complainant. G.S. 62-26.6.\nThe requirement that notice of appeal from an order of the Commission shall be served on the original complainant connotes service by some officer authorized by law to make service of process, notices, and the like. Smith v. Smith, 119 N.C. 314; Lowman v. Ballard, 168 N.C. 16, 84 S.E. 21; Hatch v. R. R., 183 N.C. 617, 112 S.E. 529.\nWhere a statute provides that a notice shall be served and no particular mode of service is provided for, \u201cservice must be made by an officer, unless service is accepted,\u201d Smith v. Smith, supra, and unless so served, there is no valid service. Hatch v. R. R., supra.\nIn law \u201ccomplainant\u201d means \u201cthe party who makes the complaint in an action or proceeding,\u201d Webster\u2019s New Int. Die., 2d Ed.; \u201cone who makes-a complaint,\u201d Callaghan, Cyc. Law Die., 2d Ed. For all practical purposes it is synonymous with \u201cpetitioner\u201d and \u201cplaintiff.\u201d The nature of the proceeding and the court in which it is instituted determines which term is the more appropriate under the circumstances.\nThe Utilities Commission is authorized to fix the rates for public-utilities, G.S. 62-122, and may, on application, permit a change in the-schedule of rates then existing. G.S. 62-125. It is the governmental agency to which a public utility must resort when it deems its rates and charges inadequate to provide a reasonable return on its investment.\nThe Light Company filed an application with the Commission in which it is alleged that its present rates in certain respects are inadequate and in which it seeks authority to amend its rate schedule. It thus originated this proceeding and complained that its rates are insufficient to provide-reasonable and necessary revenue. The contention that it was not the-original complainant cannot be sustained.\nSince the Light Company is the original complainant, service of notice of appeal on it is required by the statute. G.S. 62-26.6. In the absence-of such notice, the attempted appeal was ineffectual.\nIt is not amiss to call attention at this time to the fact that G.S. 62-21 (1943 Ed.) is modified by Sec. 1, Ch. 989, Session Laws 1949, now G.S\u201e 62-26.8. Now on appeal \u201cthe complainant in the original complaint before the commission shall be a party to the record.\u201d\nSince there has been no service of notice of appeal upon the Light Company, the original complainant, the judgment below must be\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BaeNhill, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Charles F. Bouse and W. H. YU eatherspoon for Light Company, applicant appelle.",
      "Oscar J. Mooneyham for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Ex Rel. UTILITIES COMMISSION v. MARTEL MILLS CORPORATION.\n(Filed 22 November, 1950.)\n1. Notice \u00a7 3\u2014\nWhere a statute provides for service of a notice without prescribing a mode of service, it .must be served by some officer authorized by law to make service of process, notices, and the like.\n3. Parties \u00a7 1\u2014\n\u201cComplainant\u201d means the party who makes the complaint in an action or proceeding and is synonymous for all practical purposes with \u201cpetitioner\u201d or \u201cplaintiff.\u201d\n3. Utilities Commission \u00a7 3\u2014\nA utility which files application for authority to amend its rate schedule originates the proceeding and complains that its rates are insufficient to provide reasonable and necessary revenue, and therefore is the original complainant in the proceeding. G.S. 62-25.\n4. Utilities Commission \u00a7 5\u2014\nWhere an interested party intervenes and contests an application filed by a utility for authority to amend its rate schedule, G.S. 62-24, and the application is granted, notice of appeal of such interested party from the order of the Commission must be served upon the utility, G.S. 62-26.6, and where such interested party merely mails a copy of such notice to the utility the attempted appeal is ineffectual.\nAppeal by defendant from Harris, J., July Term, 1950, of \u00a5ake.\nAffirmed.\nPetition by Carolina Power & Light Company before the Utilities Commission, beard in the court below on motion to dismiss defendant\u2019s appeal.\nCarolina Power & Light Company, hereinafter referred to as the Light Company, filed an application with the Utilities Commission for the \u25a0modification of its rate schedule by adding thereto a coal clause. The -defendant and other interested customers of petitioner appeared and \u2022opposed the petition.\nThe Commission, upon hearing the petition, entered its order 28 Feb-Tuary 1950 authorizing the complainant to put said coal clause into \u2022effect, but fixing the base price of coal at $7 per ton.\nThe defendant filed exceptions and moved for a rehearing. The Commission, on 1 May 1950, overruled the exceptions and denied the motion. Defendant in apt time gave the Commission notice of its appeal to the Superior Court and mailed a copy of said notice to the petitioner, which notice was duly received.\nOn 28 June 1950, the Light Company appeared in the court below and moved that the appeal from the Commission be dismissed for want of proper notice. The motion was allowed and defendant appealed.\nCharles F. Bouse and W. H. YU eatherspoon for Light Company, applicant appelle.\nOscar J. Mooneyham for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0690-01",
  "first_page_order": 738,
  "last_page_order": 740
}