The certified record on this appeal, is lengthy, but the facts necessary,to a.determination of the issues presented are substantially as follows: On February 7,, 1934 the Board of Railroad Commissioners (now Public Service Commission) of the State of North Dakota issued to the Northern Truck Line of Williston, North Dakota Special Certificate No. 175 authorizing the transportation of property in intra-state commerce in the vicinity of Williston, North Dakota. This certificate was issued under authority of Chapter 164 of the Session Laws of 1933-.. The proceedings in this matter was -assigned Case No: S-240.
On March 18, 1946 the Public Service Commission, after notice and hearing approved a sale and transfer by Northern Truck Line of said-Special Certificate No. 175 to Northern Transportation Company.
This matter was assigned Case No. S-874. Notice of hearing in this matter was sent to representatives of all North Dakota railroads, but none of the railroads appeared at the hearing. The commission made its findings of fact, conclusions and order as follows:
“That special certificate No. 175 authorized the transportation of general commodities in load lots of 5000 lbs. of more, from and within the territory described as follows-:
“Bounded on the east by Williams, Mountrail, Divide, Burke County line;’ on the north by the International Boundary Line; on the west by the North Dakota-Montana State Line; on the south by the county road running east of Fairviéw, Montana, to a junction of U. S. Highway No. 85 and State Highway No. 23, except that the transportation of livestock, heavy setup machinery, agricultural products of all kinds, sand, gravel, brick, tile arid emigrant movables máy be transported' -in¡both -truck loads and in less thap truck loads to and -.from a distance of 25 miles.from Williston, the base of operation; and, further, that • household .goods may be transported to.ancl.from any place within the state in load lots .of 3000 lbs or more.” ,,
*526Thereafter on May 24, 1946 upon request of the' purchaser of said Certificate No. 175, Northern Transportation Company, the Commission issued amended findings of fact, conclusions and order in said case S-874, without further notice of hearing in the matter. This amended order describes special certificate No. 175 as follows:
“That Special Certificate No. 175 authorizes the transportation of general commodities in load lots of 5000 lbs., or more, from and within a territory described as follows:
“ ‘Bounded on the east by the Williams-Mountrail-Divide-Burke County Lines; on the north by the International Boundary Line; on the west by the North Dakota-Montana State Line; on the south' by a county road running east of Fairview, Montana, to a Jet. with U. S. Highway No. 85 'and State Highway No. 23.’
except that livestock, heavy set-up machinery, household goods, ' emigrant movables and petroleum products in bulk may be transported' between points and places within the State of North Dakota.”
In November 1950 the Northern Transportation Company as seller and E. G. Balsam, L. W. Balsam, S. F. De France and V. L. De France, a partnership doing business as Balsam & De France, as buyers, made application, to the Public Service Commission for authority by the Northern Transportation Company to sell and transfer to Balsam & De France said Special Certificate No. 175. Notice of hearing .on this application was given to all of the railroads in the State and they appeared and protested the transfer of said Certificate to Balsam & De France.
Thereafter and on March 14, 1951 the Commission issued findings of fact, and conclusions, and made its order that said, certificate No. 175 be reissued and transferred to Balsam & De France. The’certificate thus reissued was in all respects identical with the certificate issued and transferred to the Northern Transportation Company under the amended order of May 1946,
No appeal was taken from this order by the railroads or by any other carriers.
On' May 4, 1951 Hvidsten Transport, Transport Inc., Dugan Oil and Transport Co., and Indianhead Truck Line filed with the Commission a complaint alleging that the Public ■ Service Commission by its amended order of May 24, 1946 in the matter of the sale of Special Certificate No. 175 by Northern Truck Line to ¡Northern Transportation Company to Balsam & De France, unlawfully enlarged and extended the operating rights of said Northern Transportation Company under said Certificate in vio.lation of Séction 49-1810, 1949 Supp.NDRC 1943;’TfeLif the present assignees of .sard” Special Certificate No,..-175, Balááni & De France were permitted to operate to the extent that the authority of said Certificate hád been unlawfully enlarged, such operation would result in irreparable harm, injury, damage to the applicants and to the general public.
Balsam & De France answered denying generally the allegations of the application.
The railroad respondents were permitted to intervene in this proceeding and joined in the application of the four motor carriers.
On January 29, 1952 the Commission issued its order dismissing the application of the said motor carriers. Thereafter the motor carriers and the railroads appealed from the decision of the' Commission to the district court of Burleigh County. The matter was heard before the Hon. Geo. Thom Jr., District Judge/upon the certified record and transcript of proceedings had before the Public Service Commission.
The district court found as a fact that the original certificate No. 175 authorized freight service only in the vicinity of Wil-liston and made conclusions of law that the authority to transport petroleum and petroleum' products existed only from and to that' territory or zone. ' The court upheld, however, the Commission’s finding that the *527Certificate was not restricted as to commodities. It also concluded that the motor carrier respondents could not complain, of the amended order of the Public Service Commission in case No. S-874 issued May 24, 1946 since the record shows that their certificates of authority were issued subsequent to the issuance and transfer of Certificate No. 175 to Northern Transportation Company. With reference to the railroad respondents however the court found that no notice of hearing was given them before making the amended order in Case S-874 on May 24, 1946, and concluded that the amended order unlawfully enlarged and extended the operating authority of Special Certificate No. 175 to the extent that it provided:
“Except that livestock, heavy set-up machinery, household goods, emigrant movables and petroleum products in bulk may be transported between points and places within the State of North Dakota.”
The court then directed that the proceedings be remanded to the Commission for deletion of that portion of • authority just quoted and ordered the Commission to draw the Certificate issued to Balsam &. .De France so as to limit the authority to and from and within the following .zone:
“Bounded on the east by Williams, Mountrail, Divide, Burke County lines; on the north by the International Boundary Line; on the west by the North Dakota-Montana State Line; and on the south by a county road running east of Fairview, Montana to a junction of U. S. Highway No. 85 and State Highway No. 23”.
From this judgment" both the Public Service. Commission and Balsam & De France appealed" to the Supreme Court.
The specifications of error as set forth by the appellants, the Public Service Commission and Balsam & De France may be summarized in three propositions:
“1. Whether or not special certificate No. 175,, as originally issued in 1934 authorized the transportation of freight between all points and places in the State, or whether it was limited to service to and from the vicinity of Williston.
“2. Whether or not the railroad respondents are now barred from objecting to the amended order of the Public Service Commission, dated May 24, 1946 in tase S-874 on the ground of laches.
“3. Whether or not the amended order issued by the Public Service Commission on May 24, 1946 in case S-874 unlawfully extended the authority of special certificate No. 175 beyond the scope of the notice given to the railroad respondents.”
We shall" first Consider the second proposition urged by the appellant.
It is established by" the undisputed facts, the substance of which has been set out herein, that the railroad respondents were served ■with notice of the hearing upon the application of Northern Transportation Company for authority to sell and assign Certificate No. 175 to Balsam & De France. The hearing was had before the Public Service Commission on February 7, 1951, at Dickinson, North Dakota. The railroads appeared at the hearing by their counsel, participated in the proceedings and objected to the transfer of Special" Certificate No. 175 from Northern Transportation Company to Balsam & De France. They, contended that the amended order of May 24, 1946 was an enlargement of the authority under original certificate No. 175; that no notice of any hearing thereon had been served on the railroads, and that the Commission was without jurisdiction to make said amended order. . . ,
The Public Service Commission issued its findings of fact and order, Ma'rch 14, 19J1, approving the transfer of. Special Certificate No. 175 to Balsam & De France. True an4 , complete copies of, the order were sent .by registered mail to the attorneys .for all the railroad respondents qn March 20, 1951. Under, Section 28-3215 *528NDRC 1943 the railroad respondents had the right of appeal from said order. '
Said Section 28-3215 provides:
“Any party to any proceeding heard by an administrative agency, except in cases where the decision of the administrative .agency is declared final by any other statute, may. appeal from such decision within thirty days after notice thereof has been given. * * *»
The order of the Public Service Commission issued March 14, 1951 was a final order. The Commission had jurisdiction over the subject matter and had power to issue such order under Section 49-1810 NDRC 1943 as amended by Chapter 277 Session Laws of 1945 which provides:
“Special common motor carriers may transport commodities within their authority, in any quantity but only from or , to that territory or zone for which they heretofore lawfully served, proved or hereafter may prove,. public convenience and necessity. A special common motor carrier shall have the authority :
“1. To transport household goods, emigrant movables, livestock, and farm supplies, or other special commodities or., general commodities in truckloads as defined by the commission, from or to points not in such -zone or between points on Class A routes, by the" authority and under the conditions and rules set by the commission;
«2 * * *»
The railroads were parties to the proceedings in which the order was issued. They did not appeal from the order and it became final when the time, for appeal had elapsed.
The present appeal was taken by the Public Service Commission and Balsam & De France-from the judgment of‘the district court which reverséd the order of the Public' Service Commission made January 29, 1952 in- the matter of' the application of the four motor carriers for a “Cease and Desist” order against Balsam & De France. The railroad respondents, as interveners, joined in the application of the motor carriers and collaterally challenged the order of the Commission made March 14, 1951 in the matter of transfer of Certificate No. 175 to Balsam' & De France. No appeal was' taken from that order and it had become final. As a general rule an order or determination of an administrative body having jurisdiction under authority of law is not subject to collateral attack in the absence of fraud or bad faith.
In 73 C.J.S., Public Administrative Bodies and Procedure, § 145, page 478, it is stated:
“As a general rule, the decisions or orders of an administrative body are, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, presumptively correct and valid. Thus there is .a presumption that legal duties and statutory requirements were complied with, that facts justifying a ruling were in existence, and that there was sufficient evidence on which to base the decision of the agency. So also, the action of an administrative board or officer, when done in the course of official duty, is generally presumed to have been done in good faith and imports verity. Unappealed-from orders must be assumed to be fair, just and reasonable, but the presumption in favor of an administrative decision is more potent with respect to a finding of .fact than it is with respect to a question of law.”
In the-same volume, same subject, § 146, Collateral Attack, 'pages 479, 480 the rule is stated as follows:
“The order or determination of an administrative-'body, acting within its. .jurisdiction and under authority of law, is not subject to collateral attack, in the absence of fraud or bad .faith, the only' method of attack available being by appeal as provided by statute. The rule 'is particularly applicable, where' the question in issue is one that requires-'a 'background of ‘Specialized *529experience, so that the admiiiistrative agency is peculiarly qualified to determine it.”
See also Application of M. & S. Transport Co., 153 Neb. 260, 44 N.W.2d 585.
Since the order of March 14, 1951 had become final and no appeal having been taken therefrom, the railroads were not in position to challenge it by collateral attack in the subsequent proceedings brought by the four motor carriers. It follows therefore that the judgment of the district court erroneously held that the order of the Public Service Commission of March 14, 1951 was void.
With reference to the four motor carriers, Hvidsten Transport, Transport Inc., Dugan Oil and Transport Company and Indianhead Truck Line, the record shows that their operating certificates were issued after the amended order of May 24, 1946, and subsequent to the reissuance of Special Certificate No. 175 to .Northern Transportation Company., They were not at that time in the transportation business in North Dakota and were not in position to attack the amended order of May 24, 1946 and the reissuance thereunder of Special Certificate No. 175. The district court held:
"That since the petitioners, now appellants, were not holders of any certificates and were not engaged in the transportation of goods in North Dakota .at the time of the amended findings in case No. S-874 they cannot be heard to complain of the orders of the Public Service Commission therein; that they are not such interested parties as to have any right to complain thereof, and object thereto. * * * ”
The four motor carriers took no cross-¿ppeal from the judgment of the district court and must therefore be deemed to be bound thereby.
In the joint briéf.of the railroads-and the four motor carriers, it is stated: ■
“Respondents' agree with appellant, Balsam & De France, when it states on pages 93 and 94 of its brief, that many issues have been eliminated. The issue of whether or not the motor carrier respondents were entitled to notice in the 1951 transfer hearing is now out of the case.”
In view of our conclusion herein it will not be necessary to consider the other specifications, urged by appellants.
After a careful consideration of the lengthy record we are agreed that the judgment of the district court should be reversed, except as to the dismissal of the complaint of the four motor carrier respondents.
The case is remanded to the district court with directions to .enter judgment reinstating. the findings and order of the Public Service: Commission made March 14, 1951.
It is so ordered.
MORRIS and GRIMSON, JJ., concur. JOHNSON, J., did not participate.