Case Name: STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ON RELATION OF THE BANKING COMMISSION, and BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY v. LEXINGTON STATE BANK
Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1971-08-18
Citations: 12 N.C. App. 232
Docket Number: No. 7110SC113
Parties: STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ON RELATION OF THE BANKING COMMISSION, and BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY v. LEXINGTON STATE BANK
Judges: Judge Morris concurs in the result.
Reporter: North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports
Volume: 12
Pages: 232–236

Head Matter:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ON RELATION OF THE BANKING COMMISSION, and BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY v. LEXINGTON STATE BANK
No. 7110SC113
(Filed 18 August 1971)
1. Banks and Banking § 1— establishment of branch bank — findings and conclusions of Banking Commission
In a proceeding to establish two branch banks, the Banking Commission is the finder of fact and its findings and conclusions will not be disturbed on appeal if supported by competent evidence, even though there may be evidence which would support contrary findings and conclusions.
2. Banks and Banking § 1— approval of two branch banks — sufficiency of evidence
Findings and conclusions of the Banking Commission in approving applications of a bank to establish two branches in the same city are supported by competent evidence.
3. Banks and Banking § 1— applications to establish two branches — consolidated hearing
The fact that the Banking Commission consolidated for hearing two applications by a bank to establish two branches in the same city and made findings and conclusions applicable to both branches does not of itself invalidate the Commission’s order approving the applications.
Judge MORRIS concurs in the result.
Judge Brock dissenting.
Appeal by protestant, Lexington State Bank, from Clark, Judge, 14 September 1970 Session of Superior Court held in Wake County.
On 15 January 1970, Branch Banking and Trust Company filed applications for authority to establish two branch banks in Lexington, N. C. The Commissioner of Banks thereafter filed with the State Banking Commission his approval of the applications.
The two applications were consolidated for hearing before the Banking Commission. At this hearing, Lexington State Bank lodged a protest against the establishment of the requested branches. After hearing the evidence of both the applicant and the protestant, the Banking Commission made findings of fact and conclusions of law approving the applications.
The protestant petitioned the Superior Court of Wake County for review of the Commission’s action. In a judgment dated 25 September 1970, Judge Clark ratified and affirmed the action of the Commission. The protestant appealed.
Carr & Gibbons by F. L. Carr; DeLapp, Ward & Hedrick by Hiram H. Ward for Branch Banking and Trust Company, plaintiff appellee.
Jordan, Morris and Hoke by John R. Jordan, Jr., and William R. Hoke; Walser, Brinkley, Walser & McGirt by Walter F. Brinkley for defendant appellant.

Opinion:
HEDRICK, Judge.
By its three assignments of error, the appellant contends the superior court erred in affirming the findings of fact and order of the Banking Commission and in finding and concluding that the decision of the Banking Commission, approving the two applications of Branch Banking and Trust Company to establish two branches in Lexington, North Carolina, is supported by competent, material and substantial evidence upon the entire record, and by not finding and concluding that the decision of the Commission was arbitrary and capricious.
G.S. 53-62, in pertinent part, provides:
"Such approval shall not be given until he shall find (i) that the establishment of such branch or teller's 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's window and of the existing bank or banks in said community."
In 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) ; State of North Carolina On Relation of the Banking Commission, and First-Citizens Bank & Trust Company v. Bank of Rocky Mount, 12 N.C. App. 112, 182 S.E. 2d 625 (1971).
The Commission's findings and conclusions are supported by competent evidence in the record. The fact that the Commission consolidated the two applications for hearing, and made findings and conclusions applicable to both branches, does not of itself invalidate the order approving the applications.
In our opinion, the Commission's experience, technical competence, and specialized knowledge enabled it to analyze and evaluate all the evidence in arriving at its findings and conclusions.
We hold that the action of the Commission is not arbitrary and capricious, for the findings and conclusions are supported by competent evidence.
The order appealed from is
Affirmed.
Judge Morris concurs in the result.
Judge Brock dissents.