There is no presumption in favor of the decree of the Circuit Court. Smith Transfer Co. v. Alabama Pub. Serv. Comm., 271 Ala. 177, 123 So.2d 28; Alabama Pub. Serv. Comm. v. Decatur Transfer Storage Co., 257 Ala. 346, 58 So.2d 887. The order of the Commission on appeal is taken as prima facie just and reasonable and will not be overturned if supported by legal evidence of substantial weight and probative force. Code, Tit. 48, § 82; Smith Transfer Co. v. Alabama Pub. Serv. Comm., supra; North Ala. Motor Express v. Rookis, 244 Ala. 137, 12 So.2d 183; Alabama Pub. Serv. Comm. v. Crow, 247 Ala. 120, 22 So.2d 721; Alabama Pub. Serv. Comm. v. Nunis, 252 Ala. 30, 39 So.2d 409; Alabama Pub. Serv. Comm. v. Higginbotham, 256 Ala. 621, 56 So.2d 401. The right of appeal from an order of the public service commission in motor carrier cases is only from a final action or order and appeal cannot be taken while an application for reconsideration is pending. Code, Tit. 48, §§ 79, 301(5) (9) (27); Southland Industries v. F.C.C., 69 App.D.C. 82, 99 F.2d 117; Woodmen of the World Life Ins. Co. v. F.C.C., 69 App.D.C. 87, 99 F.2d 122.
A municipality, exempt from the jurisdiction of the Alabama Public Service Commission, has no right to invoke the jurisdiction of the Commission in a proceeding under Section 326, Title 48, Code of Alabama 1940. Code 1940, Tit. 48, §§ 17-20, 326; Holley v. Florala Tel. Co., 223 Ala. 415, 136 So. 726. Where an order of the Public Service Commission is based upon findings of fact, unsupported by legal evidence of substantial weight and probative force, it is arbitrary and should be set aside. Code 1940, Tit. 48, § 82; Ala. Pub. Serv. Comm. v. So. Bell T. T. Co., 253 Ala. 1, 42 So.2d 655; North Ala. Motor Express v. Rookis, 244 Ala. 137, 12 So.2d 183; Alabama Public Service Comm. v. Nunis, 252 Ala. 30, 39 So.2d 409; Alabama Public Service Comm. v. Higginbotham, 256 Ala. 621, 56 So.2d 401; Alabama Public Service Comm. v. Decatur Transfer Storage, 257 Ala. 346, 58 So.2d 887. The order of the Public Service Commission approving a contract between a municipality, which is being served adequately with its electric needs at reasonable rates by its present supplier and a utility competing with the present supplier, is not consistent with the public interest, even though the latter's rates might be considered more attractive, if such approval will bring about an abandonment of costly facilities and a loss of substantial revenue to the present supplier. Code, Tit. 48, § 326; Re: Arkansas-Missouri Power Co., 71 P.U.R. (N.S.) 125; Re: Pac. Gas Elect. Co. of Calif., 38 P.U.R. (N.S.) 294; Re: Ozark Utility Co., 21 P.U.R. (N.S.) 47; Re: Wisconsin P L Co., 15 P.U.R. (N.S.) 211; Union Rural Elect. Assn., 17 P.U.R.3d 160.
T. B. Hill, Jr., Robert C. Black, Montgomery, and Douglas Arant, Macbeth Wagnon, Jr., Thad G. Long, Birmingham, for appellants and cross-appellees. Orders of the Public Service Commission must be affirmed if there is any substantial evidence to support them. Hiller Truck Lines, Inc. v. APSC, 292 Ala. 161, 290 So.2d 649 (1974); APSC v. Higginbotham, 256 Ala. 621, 56 So.2d 401 (1952); APSC v. Nunis, 252 Ala. 30, 39 So.2d 409 (1949); Floyd Beasley Transp. Co. v. APSC, 276 Ala. 130, 159 So.2d 833 (1964); APSC v. Crow, 247 Ala. 120, 22 So.2d 721 (1945); North Alabama Motor Express v. Rookis, 244 Ala. 137, 12 So.2d 183 (1943). Orders of the Public Service Commission are presumed to be prima facie reasonable and valid in any court. Title 48, Section 71, Alabama Code; Title 48, Section 82, Alabama Code; Ex Parte APSC, 268 Ala. 322, 106 So.2d 158 (1958); Birmingham Elec. Co. v. APSC, 254 Ala. 140, 154, 47 So.2d 455, 468 (1950); APSC v. Southern Ry., 269 Ala. 63, 111 So.2d 214 (1959).
Homewood Dairy Prod. Co., 241 Ala. 470, 3 So.2d 58; Ala. Jersey Cattle Club v. Ala. State Milk Control Board, 274 Ala. 611, 150 So.2d 711; Morgan v. United States, 298 U.S. 468, 56 S.Ct. 906, 80 L.Ed. 1288; Almon v. Morgan County, 245 Ala. 241, 16 So.2d 511. The Milk Control Board is without power to regulate the price of any product that is not "milk" within the meaning of the Milk Control Board Act of Alabama. Code, Tit. 22, §§ 210, 223. A product manufactured from dry powder, water and lactic acid is not "milk" within the meaning of the Milk Control Board Act of Alabama. Code, Tit. 22, § 206. Official orders of the Alabama Milk Control Board duly passed after holding public hearings and full compliance with Title 22, Section 205-231, Code of Ala. 1940, as amended, are not to be set aside simply because the Board made no formal findings of fact. Ex parte Homewood Dairy Products Co., 241 Ala. 470, 3 So.2d 58; Almon v. Morgan County, 245 Ala. 241, 16 So.2d 511; Code, Tit. 22, § 217; Ala. Pub. Serv. Comm. v. Higginbotham, 256 Ala. 621, 56 So.2d 401; Ala. Pub. Serv. Comm. v. Nunis, 252 Ala. 30, 39 So.2d 409; Railroad Comm. of Alabama v. Ala. G. So. R. Co., 185 Ala. 354, 64 So. 13, L.R.A. 1915D, 98. The supervisory jurisdiction of the Court on certiorari is restricted to an examination into the external validity of proceedings had in the administrative body and cannot be exercised to review the judgment as to its intrinsic correctness, either on the law or on the facts of the case and if there is any evidence to support the orders of the Board, or any reasonable inference to be drawn from the evidence, or any tendency of the legal evidence to support the action taken by the Board, the orders of the Board cannot be reversed, vacated, or modified. Ex parte Homewood Dairy Products Co., supra; White Way Pure Milk Co. v. Ala. State Milk Control Bd., 265 Ala. 660, 93 So.2d 509; Ala. Pub. Serv. Comm. v. Higginbotham, supra; Ala. Elect. Co-op. v. Ala. Power Co., 274 Ala. 332, 148 So.2d 613.
On appeal this court must review the judgment of the circuit court without any presumption of its correctness. Ala. Public Service Comm. v. Higginbotham, 256 Ala. 621, 56 So.2d 401; Ala. Public Service Comm. v. Decatur Transfer Storage, 257 Ala. 346, 58 So.2d 887; Ala. Public Service Comm. v. Nunis, 252 Ala. 30, 39 So.2d 409. The order of the commission should be set aside if the court finds that the commission erred to the prejudice of appellant's substantial rights in its application of the law or was based upon a finding of facts contrary to the substantial weight of the evidence. Code 1940, Tit. 48, § 82. The commission erred in its application of the law and has no authority to construe certificates issued by it. Smith Transfer Co. v. Robins Transfer Co., 258 Ala. 406, 63 So.2d 351; Martin Truck Line v. Ala. Tank Lines, 261 Ala. 163, 73 So.2d 756; Deaton Truck Line v. B'ham-Tuscaloosa Motor Frt. Line, 264 Ala. 345, 87 So.2d 421. The finding that existing transportation service is adequate to meet the reasonable public needs should be reversed if not supported by legal evidence of substantial weight and probative force.
[Emphasis added.] See, e.g., Alabama Public Service Commission v. Chem-Haulers, Inc., 293 Ala. 677, 309 So.2d 453 (1975); Alabama Public Service Commission v. Consolidated Transportation Co., 286 Ala. 323, 239 So.2d 753 (1970); Alabama Public Service Commission v. Higginbotham, 256 Ala. 621, 56 So.2d 401 (1951). Thus, under section 82, Title 48, the review here will be two-pronged: (1) Was the Commission's order based upon a finding of facts contrary to the substantial weight of the evidence?
Orders of the Alabama Public Service Commission are due to be affirmed unless the Court finds that (1) the Commission erred to the prejudice of the party's substantial rights in its application of the law; or (2) the order was procured by fraud; or (3) was based upon a finding of facts contrary to the substantial weight of the evidence. Hiller Truck Lines, Inc. v. Alabama Public Service Commission, etc., et al., 292 Ala. 161, 290 So.2d 649; Floyd Beasley Transportation Co. v. Alabama Public Service Commission, 276 Ala. 130, 159 So.2d 833 (1964); North Alabama Motor Express v. Rookis, 244 Ala. 137, 12 So.2d 183 (1943); Alabama Public Service Commission v. Higginbotham, 256 Ala. 621, 56 So.2d 401 (1952); Alabama Public Service Commission v. Nunis, 252 Ala. 30, 39 So.2d 409 (1949); Alabama Public Service Commission v. Crow, 247 Ala. 120, 22 So.2d 721 (1945); Title 48, Section 82, Alabama Code. A Commission order denying an application to split off authority to transport commodities in bulk from a general commodity certificate must be affirmed when it is supported by substantial evidence. Coastal Tank Lines, Inc. — Purchase — Lobb, 85 M.C.C. 770; Beard-Laney, Inc. — Purchase — Hagler, 55 M.C.C. 465, 474; Matlack, Inc. — Purchase — Aero Motors, Inc., 85 M.C.C. 779, 785; Watson Purchase — Comet Motor Express, 40 M.C.C. 735; Alexander — Purchase — Kelley, 56 M.C.C. 151. Whether a certificate or permit issued by the Alabama Public Service Commission should be transferred under Section 15 of the Motor Carrier Act is an issue for Commission determination. An order denying an application to transfer such a certificate or permit will not be set aside on judicial review unless the order involve
1940 Code of Alabama as amended, Title 48, Section 301(11); Alabama Public Service Comm. v. Nunis, 252 Ala. 30, 39 So.2d 409; Ala. Public Service Comm. v. Decatur Transfer Storage, 257 Ala. 346, 58 So.2d 887; Osborne Truck Lines, Inc. v. Ala. Public Service Commission, 284 Ala. 166, 223 So.2d 284. Proceedings on appeal from orders of the Public Service Commission are only to be affirmed if supported by legal evidence of substantial weight and probative force. Ala. Public Service Comm. v. Crow, 247 Ala. 120, 22 So.2d 721; Ala. Public Service Comm. v. Nunis, 252 Ala. 30, 39 So.2d 409; Ala. Public Service Comm. v. Higginbotham, 256 Ala. 621, 56 So.2d 401; North Ala. Motor Express v. Rookis, 244 Ala. 137, 12 So.2d 183. LAWSON, Justice.
An order of the Alabama Public Service Commission can be set aside by the Circuit Court on appeal on a finding that the Alabama Public Service Commission erred to the prejudice of the protestants' substantial rights in its application of the law, or that the order was based on a finding of the facts contrary to the substantial weight of the evidence. Code 1940, Tit. 48, § 82; Alabama Pub. Serv. Comm. v. Higginbotham, 256 Ala. 621, 56 So.2d 401. HARWOOD, Justice.
Ala. 29, 18 So. 801; Gunn v. Howell, 27 Ala. 663, 62 Am.Dec. 785. With respect to the judicial acts of courts exercising special and limited jurisdiction, the existence of jurisdictional facts is not inferred from the mere exercise of jurisdiction, but must affirmatively appear from the record; and in such cases a compliance with the requisitions of the statute is necessary to its jurisdiction, and must appear on the face of its proceedings. Birmingham Elec. Co. v. Ala. Pub. Ser. Comm., supra; Goodwater Warehouse Co., v. Street, supra; State v. Mobile G. R. Co., supra. The Alabama Public Service Commission is a body of administrative experts, acting as agents of the legislature, and in matters pertaining to railroads, in pursuance of Sections 242 and 243 of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, and the Commission's order shall be taken as prima facie just and reasonable. Code 1940, Tit. 48, §§ 71, 82; Railway Express Agency, Inc., v. Ala. Pub. Ser. Comm., 265 Ala. 369, 91 So.2d 489; Ala. Pub. Ser. Comm. v. Higginbotham, 256 Ala. 621, 56 So.2d 401; Ala. Pub. Ser. Comm. v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 253 Ala. 559, 45 So.2d 449; Ala. Pub. Ser. Comm. v. Nunis, 252 Ala. 30, 39 So.2d 409; Ala. Pub. Ser. Comm. v. Crow, 247 Ala. 120, 22 So.2d 721; North Ala. Motor Express v. Rookis, 244 Ala. 137, 12 So.2d 183; Ala. Great Southern R. Co. v. Ala. Pub. Ser. Comm., 210 Ala. 151, 97 So. 226; Railroad Comm. v. Ala. Northern R. Co., 182 Ala. 357, 62 So. 749. Statements in pleadings in a former suit which are merely assertions of conclusions of law or assertions of opinion, do not create an estoppel, neither does a change of positions with respect to a pure matter of law work an estoppel; and there can be no estoppel where the admissions or statements were made through mistake, or without full knowledge of the facts, especially where the facts were within the knowledge of the adverse party; and the principle of estoppel applicable to individuals is not applicable to the State or its municipal subdivisions or to state created agencies. 21 C.