The matter here sought to be litigated is pending before the Utilities Commission, with adequate remedy of appeal by any affected party. C. S., 1097. Even if it be conceded that equity might intervene in certain circumstances, 43 Am. Jur., 720, the present showing is not sufficient to invoke its aid.
As a general rule, where a matter is committed to an administrative agency, one who fails to exhaust the remedies provided before such *845agency will not be beard in equity to challenge the validity of its orders. Garysburg Mfg. Co. v. Comrs. of Pender County, 196 N. C., 744, 147 S. E., 284; Mfg. Co. v. Comrs., 189 N. C., 99, 126 S. E., 114; Sykes v. Jenny Wren Co., 64 App. D. C., 379, 78 E. (2d), 729; Switchman's Union of N. A. v. Nat. Mediation Bd.,.U. S., ., 88 Law Ed., Adv. Op. 89.
It is not contended that the order of the Utilities Commission is ultra vires, as was the case in S. v. Scott, 182 N. C., 865, 109 S. E., 789, cited and relied upon by the plaintiff. Nor is it alleged that the Commission acted arbitrarily or invaded any of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. 28 Am. Jur., 242. If erroneous or unreasonable, the remedy is by appeal.
In Chicago v. O’Connell, 278 Ill., 591, 116 N. E., 210, it was said: “The statutory method of reviewing the reasonableness of orders of the Commission is exclusive.” See Utilities Com. v. Great Southern Trucking Co., ante, 687.
Plaintiff has shown no ground for equitable relief. The temporary restraining order was properly dissolved.
Affirmed.