While appellants seek to challenge tbe validity of tbe order of tbe North Carolina Utilities Commission, dated 20 September, 1942, amending Rule 22 of its rules and regulations for tbe operation of union bus stations, tbe question arising upon tbe challenge to judgment from which appeal is taken, and determinative of tbis appeal is whether appellants are entitled to appeal to tbe courts from tbe action of tbe Commission in adopting and promulgating such amended rule. Tbe court below held that they were not, and with tbis ruling we are in accord.

Tbe North Carolina Utilities Commission, a creature of tbe General Assembly, is an administrative agency of tbe State with such powers and duties as are given to it by statute. G. S., chapter 62, entitled “Utilities Commission.” These powers and duties are of a dual nature— supervisory or regulatory and judicial. Provision Co. v. Daves, 190 N. C., 7, 128 S. E., 593; Pue v. Hood, Comr. of Banks, 222 N. C., 310, 22 S. E. (2d), 896.

Tbe Legislature has not undertaken to foresee, and provide for every contingency involved in tbe problem of supervising and regulating-public utilities, including motor vehicle carriers, within tbe State of North Carolina, but, in accordance with prevailing custom recognized in public administrative law, it has authorized and empowered tbe Utilities Commission to make rules and regulations by which tbe purpose of tbe statute may be effectuated. G. S., 62-109. Tbis is power of a supervisory or regulatory nature, and general-in character. Provision Co. v. Daves, supra, and Pue v. Hood, Comr. of Banks, supra. And from tbe adoption and promulgation of rules and regulations in tbis respect, tbe Legislature has prescribed no procedure for appeal to tbe courts.

On tbe other band, for tbe purpose of making investigations and conducting bearings, tbe Legislature has constituted tbe North Carolina *298 Utilities Commission a court of record, with, all the powers and jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction as to all subjects embraced within the purview of the statute, for which procedure is prescribed and authorized, G. S., 62-11, et seq., with right in “any party affected thereby” to appeal “from all decisions and determinations made by the Utilities Commission.” G. S., 62-20. By these provisions the Legislature has granted to the Utilities Commission the power to hear and adjudicate on cases arising within the scope of its activities. The exercise of this power is judicial in nature.

In the light of the distinctive characteristic of the powers thus granted to the Utilities Commission, no appeal may be taken from an order by which the Commission adopts and promulgates a general regulatory rule of supervisory nature. The validity of it may not be challenged in such manner. The rule in question is of this character, and the validity of it may not be challenged by appeal from the order adopting and promulgating it.

Nevertheless, if and when any motor vehicle carrier comes in judicial conflict with the provision of the rule or regulation, it may then challenge the validity of the rule or regulation. Compare Yakus v. U. S., 88 L. Ed., 653, 1943 Term of the United States Supreme Court, Law Ed. Advance Opinions, No. 11, decided 27 March, 1944, where Congress provided procedure for determining the validity of regulations of O.P.A.

Proceedings before the Utilities Commission previously considered by this Court deal with individual cases and are distinguishable, and are not controlling here.

Affirmed.