Brice v. Robertson House Moving, Wrecking & Salvage Co.

• Citation: 249 N.C. 74,105 S.E.2d 439
• Decision Date: 29 October 1958
• Docket Number: No. 234,234
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Parties: Mattle Robinson BRICE, Widow, Alice Bush Brice, Widow, Emma Lee Brice, Widow, Willie Brice, Elizabeth Brice, David Brice, Jr., Samuel Brice, James T. Brice and Dorothy Lee Brice, Children of David Brice, deceased, Employee, v. ROBERTSON HOUSE MOVING, WRECKING AND SALVAGE COMPANY, Employer, Bituminous Casualty Corporation, Carrier.

Page 439

105 S.E.2d 439

249 N.C. 74

Mattle Robinson BRICE, Widow, Alice Bush Brice, Widow, Emma Lee Brice, Widow, Willie Brice, Elizabeth Brice, David Brice, Jr., Samuel Brice, James T. Brice and Dorothy Lee Brice, Children of David Brice, deceased, Employee, v. ROBERTSON HOUSE MOVING, WRECKING AND SALVAGE COMPANY Employer, Bituminous Casualty Corporation, Carrier.

No. 234

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Oct. 29, 1958

Atty. Gen. Malcolm B. Seawell, Asst. Atty. Gen. Ralph Moody, for petitioners appellants.

Elbert E. Foster, Charles M. Welling, Charlotte, for respondents appellees.

WINBORNE, Chief Justice.

The Constitution of North Carolina, Article IV, Section 8, declares in pertinent part that 'The Supreme Court * * * shall have the power to issue any remedial writs necessary to give it a general supervision and control over the proceedings of the inferior courts.' This provision has been invoked in many decisions of the Court, among which are: State v. Cochran, 230 N.C. 523, 53 S.E.2d 663, and Park Terrace, Inc., v. Phoenix Indemnity Co., 243 N.C. 595, 91 S.E.2d 584, 586.

In the Park Terrace case, supra, it is said: 'This Court has general supervisory authority over the orders, judgments, and decrees of the Superior Courts of the State * * * This is a prerogative which in a proper case, when necessary to promote the expeditious administration of justice, we will not hesitate to exercise.'

The North Carolina Industrial Commission, created under G.S. § 97-77, is primarily an administrative agency of the State charged with the duty of administering the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, Chapter 97 of General Statutes. Hanks v. Southern Public Utilities Co., 210 N.C. 312, 186 S.E. 252.

In the event of disagreement, the Commission is to make award after hearing. G.S. § 97-83.

The Commission or any of its members shall hear the parties and their representatives and witnesses, on matters at issue, and shall determine the dispute in a summary manner.

The award, together with a statement of the findings of fact, rulings of law, and other matters pertinent to the question at issue shall be filed with the record of the proceedings. G.S. § 97-84. Under this section the Commission is made the fact finding body. The finding of facts is one of its primary duties. Beach v. McLean, 219 N.C. 521, 14 S.E.2d 515.

Either party to the dispute may appeal from the decision of the Commission to the Superior Court 'for errors of law'. G.S. § 97-86. And the Superior Court on such appeal has appellate jurisdiction to review an award of the Industrial Commission for errors of law. Thomason v. Red Bird Cab Co., 235 N.C. 602, 70 S.E.2d 706.

The findings of fact of the Industrial Commission are conclusive and binding on appeal when supported by competent evidence,--even though there is evidence that would have supported a finding to the contrary. Tucker v. Lowdermilk, 233 N.C. 185, 63 S.E.2d 109; Penland v. Bird Coal Co., 246 N.C. 26, 97 S.E.2d 432, 438.

The procedure prescribed for hearing on appeal is summarized in Penland v. Bird Coal Co., supra, in this manner: 'When an appeal is taken from the Industrial Commission, the statute, G.S. § 97-86, requires that a certified transcript of the record before the Commission be filed in the Superior Court (citing case). When the appeal comes on for hearing, it is heard by the presiding judge who sits as an appellate court. His function is to review alleged errors of law made by the Industrial Commission, as disclosed by the record and as presented to him by exceptions duly entered. Necessarily, the scope of review is limited to the record as certified by the Commission and to the questions of law therein presented'--citing case.

And to the same effect this Court said in Thomason v. Red Bird Cab Co., supra [235 N.C. 602, 70 S.E.2d 708]: 'In passing upon an appeal from an award of the industrial commission in a proceeding coming within the purview of the act, the superior court is limited in its inquiry to these two questions of law: (1) Whether or not there was any competent evidence before the commission to support its findings of fact; and (2) whether or not the findings of fact of the commission justify its legal conclusions and decision. Henry v. A. C. Laurence Leather Co., 231 N.C. 477, 57 S.E.2d 760. The superior court cannot consider the evidence in the proceeding in any event for the purpose of finding the facts for itself. Reed v. Lavender Bros., 206 N.C. 898, 172 S.E. 877; Ussery v. Erlanger Cotton Mills, 201 N.C. 688, 161 S.E. 307. If the findings of fact of the industrial commission are supported by competent evidence and are determinative of all the questions at issue in the proceeding, the court must accept such findings as final truth, and merely determine whether or not they justify the legal conclusions and decision of the commission. Blevins...