40 S.E.2d 600 (1946); Stout, 121 N.C.App. at 718, 468 S.E.2d at 257. Applying this test to the present case in the
appropriate context, there is nothing to indicate that gas services—were they to be provided by Midland—would be
….
tension of natural gas service to unserved areas—and not simply the extension itself—promotes the public welfare.
Id. A tap on the Pipeline that is controlled by Midland facilitates extension of natural gas service to the unserved
citizens of Midland.
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the condemnations by Midland were for the public benefit or use such
North Carolina law.
Regarding this issue, Midland has asked this Court to take judicial notice of an amendment to the Joint Venture
Agreement. As discussed supra, because this amendment has been memorialized in an order of the Utilities Com-
mission, we will take judicial notice of the amendment.
purpose, this Court has held that where the taking benefits both public and private interests, the controlling question
is “whether the paramount reason for the taking of land to which objection is made is the public interest, to which
benefits to private interests are merely incidental, or whether, on the other hand, the private interests are paramount
and controlling and the public interests merely incidental.” Stout, 121 N.C.App. at 719, 468 S.E.2d at 257 (quoting
Carolina Tel. & Tel. Co., 321 N.C. at 434, 364 S.E.2d at 403).
….
tension of natural gas service to unserved areas—and not simply the extension itself—promotes the public welfare.
Id. A tap on the Pipeline that is controlled by Midland facilitates extension of natural gas service to the unserved
citizens of Midland.
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the condemnations by Midland were for the public benefit or use such
North Carolina law.
Regarding this issue, Midland has asked this Court to take judicial notice of an amendment to the Joint Venture
Agreement. As discussed supra, because this amendment has been memorialized in an order of the Utilities Com-
mission, we will take judicial notice of the amendment.
purpose, this Court has held that where the taking benefits both public and private interests, the controlling question
is “whether the paramount reason for the taking of land to which objection is made is the public interest, to which
benefits to private interests are merely incidental, or whether, on the other hand, the private interests are paramount
and controlling and the public interests merely incidental.” Stout, 121 N.C.App. at 719, 468 S.E.2d at 257 (quoting
Carolina Tel. & Tel. Co., 321 N.C. at 434, 364 S.E.2d at 403).