The question for decision is whether an applicant for a franchise to operate motor vehicles upon designated public highways of the State for commercial purposes, who at the time has no prior or subsisting right to be affected thereby, is entitled to appeal to the courts from the determination of the Utilities Commission denying the application and awarding the franchise to an opposing applicant.

The trial court thought that a negative answer was adumbrated, if not actually given, in the case of Utilities Commission v. Trucking Co., 223 N. C., 687, 28 S. E. (2d), 201. The impression is correct. We now adopt the concurring opinion in that case as the opinion here. The position is also supported by what was said in Utilities Com. v. Kinston, 221 N. C., 359, 20 S. E. (2d), 322.

The case of Utilities Com. v. Coach Co., 216 N. C., 325, 4 S. E. (2d), 897; S. c., 218 N. C., 233, 10 S. E. (2d), 824, is distinguishable as was pointed out in the above cited, controlling cases. Likewise, the case of Utilities Com. v. Coach Co., 224 N. C., 390, 30 S. E. (2d), 328, appears beside the point.

The attempted appeal was properly dismissed.

Affirmed.