{
  "id": 8576365,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, on the Relation of the UTILITIES COMMISSION v. CENTRAL TRANSPORT, INC.",
  "name_abbreviation": "State ex rel. Utilities Commission v. Central Transport, Inc.",
  "decision_date": "1963-12-19",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "762",
  "last_page": "765",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "260 N.C. 762"
    }
  ],
  "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": "73 S.E. 2d 870",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "236 N.C. 692",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627473
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/236/0692-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "28 S.E. 2d 201",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "223 N.C. 687",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8615929
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/223/0687-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "130 S.E. 2d 663",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "259 N.C. 363",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8560603
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/259/0363-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 396,
    "char_count": 6331,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.393,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.844506106891794e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5339575782217418
    },
    "sha256": "7a597e0f85df8fb3369bd2c1882464934a6951671c7e4ab4e2aaa145214aea12",
    "simhash": "1:8e43267bad186ae8",
    "word_count": 986
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:49:29.885963+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, on the Relation of the UTILITIES COMMISSION v. CENTRAL TRANSPORT, INC."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HiggiNS, J.\nThe O\u2019Boyle Tank Lines, Inc., offered substantial evidence of its ability ,and equipment to perform, the \u25a0contract carrier service for which it requested authority.\nThe Lone Star Cement Company 'has distribution facilities in a number of eastern stateis. O\u2019Boyle Tank Lines performs contract carrier service for that company in Virginia. Lone Star\u2019s Transportation Manager testified: \u201cIn order to render the service that is required by Lone Star Cement Corporation, whatever motor carrier we employ must, to all intents and purposes, become .an integral pant of that organization . . . He must have his equipment available to. us for loading at any time of the night or day which we require. We load trucks sometimes at night for orders which we have ion ihand . . . and we also load tracks, . . . anticipating orders, ... we do that in order that we can take advantage of some 'lull in the packhouse crews operation . . . (when) the packhouse crews are idle. We can then call on these tracks which are outside tire packhouse door and finish out an eight-hour day for those man . . . We also have to- work in agreement -with .this motor carrier to have direct wires to his office ... a copy comes over a wire simultaneously to our packhouse so they will know what is to' be loaded; . . . In all of our operation we prefer a, contract carrier, . . . \u25a0we have obtained the services of a contract carriel' with one exception. . . . Our opinion is that the service which will be -rendered by O\u2019Boyle will be the type service we require. Our company is very much desirous of seeking the .approval of the permit that is sought by this 'application.\u201d\nFrom the testimony of Lone Star \u2019s Traffic Manager (sketchily quoted herein) -the Commission- was fully justified in concluding that a contract carrier is /better\u2019 qualified than a common, carrier to meet Lone Star\u2019s motor transport needs. A common carrier must serve the public generally. A contract carrier is limited to serve the other party to- the contract. G.S. 62-121.7 (3) and (4). The Commission\u2019s findings are fully sustained by the -evidence in. view of the entire -record. Utilities Comm. v. Ryder Tank Line, 259 N.C. 363, 130 S.E. 2d 663; Utilities Comm. v. Trucking Co., 223 N.C. 687, 28 S.E. 2d 201. The Commie-ision\u2019s findings likewise furnish -a valid basis for issuing the -contract \u2022authority applied for in this proceeding. Utilities Comm. v. Ray, 236 N.C. 692, 73 S.E. 2d 870.\nThe judgment of the Superior Court o.f Randolph County is\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HiggiNS, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      ". Martin, Whitley and Washington by Robert M. Martin for Central Transport, Inc., protestant appellant.",
      "Bailey, Dixon and Wooten by J. Ruffin Bailey for O\u2019Boyle Tank Lines, Inc., appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, on the Relation of the UTILITIES COMMISSION v. CENTRAL TRANSPORT, INC.\n(Filed 19 December 1963.)\nCarriers \u00a7 3\u2014\nThe evidence before the Utilities Commission, in. regard -to a manufac-,tracer's need to work .in close cooperation with dibs carrier in having trucks and personnel available at ail times near its plant foir loading shipments day or night -as -orders -were received, etc., held, sufficient to sustain the Commission\u2019s findings and conclusion thereon that a contract carrier is better qualified than -a common carrier to meet the manufacturer's needs, and -order of the Commission granting the contract carrier\u2019s application for such authority is affirmed.\nAppeal \u00a1by Central Transport, Inc., from Latham, S.J., March 18, 1963 Civil Session, RaNDolph Superior Court.\nThis proceeding \u00a1originated before the North Carolina Utilities Commission on .application filed \u00a1by O\u2019Boyle Tank Lines, Inc., Arlington, Virginia, for contract \u00a1carrier \u00a1authority \u00a1to .transport \u00a1by motor vehicle for Lone Star Cement Company dry .cement iin bulk .and in \u00a1bags from the shipper\u2019s .plant in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, to all points and places in North Carolina. A \u00a1written contract between the shipper and the .applicant is made a part of the application.\nCentral Transport, Inc., High Point, North Carolina, \u00a1and Maybelle Transport Company, of Lexington, North Carolina, filed protests \u00a1alleging that they were authorized and fully equipped as common carriers to transport dry cement in bulk and in bags throughout North Carolina; \u00a1that \u00a1contract authority to O\u2019Boyle Tank Line would be an unnecessary \u00a1duplication not in. the \u00a1public interest and likely to jeopardize .protestants\u2019 financial standing; and would add an unnecessary traffic hazard to the North Carolina public \u00a1highways. Tire protestants were permitted .to. intervene and to be 'heard.\nAfter hearing, the Utilities Commission, .among other findings, made \u25a0the following: Upon the completion of the Lone Star Cement Company\u2019s plant -at Winston-Salem (by January 1, 1963) its transportation service will require -that trucks be located \u00a1at or near its distribution site; that a shuttle tractor with \u00a1available operating personnel be kept on or near the yard \u00a1at \u00a1all times, both day and night. \u201cThe proposed operation conforms with the definition of a contract carrier, will not unreasonably impair the efficient public service of \u00a1carriers operating under \u00a1certificates and/or rail carriers nor unreasonably impair the use of the highways 'by the general public and will be cons\u00e1stant with the \u00a1public interest \u00a1and- the transportation policy declared \u00a1by the Truck Act. O\u2019Boyle is fit, willing and able to perform the .service proposed as a .contract carrier.\u201d\nThe Commission \u2022concluded: \u201cCareful consideration of all the facts and circumstances involved in this matter leads to the conclusion that the \u00a1transportation needs of \u00a1shipper more nearly conform to those required of a \u00a1contract carrier rather than common \u00a1carrier, \u00a1and .authority will, therefore, be granted.\u201d\nThe Commission \u00a1ordered contract authority issue as requested upon the filing of schedules of rates and compliance with the requirements of \u25a0the Commission, including a .\u00a1showing of insurance \u00a1coverage.\nCentral Transport, Inc., \u00a1one of the protestants, filed exceptions to the findings of fact \u00a1and conclusions \u00a1of the Commission, \u00a1and \u00a1appealed to the Superior Court. On the appeal Judge Latham overruled all excep-ti-ons and assignments of error and -affirmed the Gommission\u2019s order granting tlie contract .authority as requested. The protestant appealed.\n. Martin, Whitley and Washington by Robert M. Martin for Central Transport, Inc., protestant appellant.\nBailey, Dixon and Wooten by J. Ruffin Bailey for O\u2019Boyle Tank Lines, Inc., appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0762-01",
  "first_page_order": 802,
  "last_page_order": 805
}