Jackson v. Bobbitt, 741

• Decision Date: 20 January 1961
• Docket Number: No. 741,741
• Citation: 253 N.C. 670,117 S.E.2d 806
• Parties: William B. JACKSON, Jr. v. Louis Richard BOBBITT and Robert L. Satterfield, Adm'r of the Estate of James Lamar Roberts, Additional Party Defendant. William Junior LONG v. Louis Richard BOBBITT and Robert L. Satterfield, Adm'r of the Estate of James Lamar Roberts, Additional Party Defendant. Grover Vernon JOHNSON v. Louis Richard BOBBITT and Robert L. Satterfield, Adm'r of the Estate of James Lamar Roberts, Additional Party Defendant. Samuel Lee EVANS v. Louis Richard BOBBITT and Robert L. Satterfield, Adm'r of the Estate of James Lamar Roberts, Additional Party Defendant. Lawrence Thomas SWANN v. Louis Richard BOBBITT and Robert L. Satterfield, Adm'r of the Estate of James Lamar Roberts, Additional Party Defendant.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

Page 806

117 S.E.2d 806

253 N.C. 670

William B. JACKSON, Jr. v. Louis Richard BOBBITT and Robert L. Satterfield, Adm'r of

the Estate of James Lamar Roberts, Additional

Party Defendant.

William Junior LONG v. Louis Richard BOBBITT and Robert L. Satterfield, Adm'r of

the Estate of James Lamar Roberts, Additional

Party Defendant.

Grover Vernon JOHNSON v. Louis Richard BOBBITT and Robert L. Satterfield, Adm'r of

the Estate of James Lamar Roberts, Additional

Party Defendant.

Samuel Lee EVANS v. Louis Richard BOBBITT and Robert L. Satterfield, Adm'r of

the Estate of James Lamar Roberts, Additional

Party Defendant.

Lawrence Thomas SWANN v. Louis Richard BOBBITT and Robert L. Satterfield, Adm'r of

the Estate of James Lamar Roberts, Additional

Party Defendant.

No. 741

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 20, 1961

Henry Godwin (N. H. Godwin), Durham, for plaintiffs, appellees.

Robert L. Satterfield, Hillsboro, and Smith, Leach, Anderson & Dorsett, Raleigh, for defendant, appellant.

PARKER, Justice.

Defendant Satterfield assigns as errors the denial of his motion for judgment of compulsory nonsuit made at the close of plaintiffs' evidence, and the denial of a similar motion renewed at the close of all the evidence.

Defendant contends that all five plaintiffs and James Lamar Roberts were employees of Bobby Roberts, and all five plaintiffs were injured by accident arising out of and in the course of their employment, and, therefore, their remedy being exclusively under the North Carolina Workmen's Compensation Act, the trial court was without jurisdiction, and should have compulsorily nonsuited all five actions.

All complaints allege that James Lamar Roberts was an employee, agent and servant of the defendant Louis Richard Bobbitt. All answers merely deny these allegations. The pleadings in the case contain no allegations that plaintiffs and James Lamar Roberts were employees of Bobby Roberts. There is no plea by defendant that the court lacked jurisdiction. Plaintiffs' brief states, 'the first time Workmen's Compensation coverage for these plaintiffs was raised, was at the close of plaintiffs' evidence.' However that may be, a challenge to the jurisdiction of the court may be made at any time, Hart v. Thomasville Motors, 244 N.C. 84, 92 S.E.2d 673, even in the Supreme Court, MacRae & Co. v. Shew, 220 N.C. 516, 17 S.E.2d 664.

If a court finds at any stage of the proceedings that it is without jurisdiction, it is its duty to take proper notice of the defect, and stay, quash or dismiss the suit. In re Davis' Custody, 248 N.C. 423, 103 S.E.2d 503; Henderson County v. Smyth, 216 N.C. 421, 5 S.E.2d 136.

The Superior Court is a court of general state-wide jurisdiction. N.C. Constitution, Article IV, § 2; State v. Pender, 66 N.C. 313; Rhyne v. Lipscombe, 122 N.C. 650, 29 S.E. 57; Lovegrove v. Lovegrove, 237 N.C. 307, 74 S.E.2d 723.

Plaintiffs are entitled to call to their aid the principle of omnia rite acta praesumuntur and the prima facie presumption of rightful jurisdiction which arises from the fact that a court of general jurisdiction has acted in the matter. Williamson v. Spivey, 224 N.C. 311, 30 S.E.2d 46, and cases cited.

This Court said in Dellinger v. Clark, 234 N.C. 419, 67 S.E.2d 448, 452: 'The court below had the power to consider and inquire into the facts in respect to, and determine, subject to review, the question of its jurisdiction. (Citing authority). And the court having acted in the matter, every presumption not inconsistent with the record will be indulged in favor of jurisdiction. (Citing authority). The burden is on the party asserting want of jurisdiction to show such want.'

The allegations of all five complaints show that the court had jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of all five actions, and there is nothing in the answers to show the contrary. 'Unless the contrary appears from the record, it will be presumed, with respect to a court of general jurisdiction, that all the facts necessary to give the court jurisdiction to render the particular judgment existed and were duly found, that the court has determined every matter on which its jurisdiction depends, and that every step necessary to give it jurisdiction has been taken.' 21 C.J.S. Courts p. 150.

What the Court said in Powers v. Robeson County Memorial Hospital, 242 N.C. 290, 87 S.E.2d 510, 512, is apposite: 'Whether the hospital had the required number of employees is a jurisdictional fact to be found by the court. (Citing authority). But in the absence of a request for such finding, it will be assumed that, in allowing the motion for judgment as of nonsuit on the ground stated, the court found the essential facts.'

The record shows that the trial judge denied the motions for judgments of compulsory nonsuit without stating any reason for his ruling. So far as the record shows, no request was made by defendants, or any one of them, that he find the facts as to jurisdiction. It will be presumed that in denying the motions for judgments of compulsory nonsuit the trial judge duly found and determined that the court had jurisdiction over the subject matter of all five cases and of the parties, unless the contrary appears from the record.

In reference to appellant's contention that the court was without jurisdiction, plaintiffs' evidence shows the following: All five plaintiffs live in Orange County, and were on 15 April 1958 employees of Bobby Roberts, who at the time was constructing two houses in the city of Durham. Paul Roberts, a brother of Bobby Roberts, was supervisor for Bobby Roberts. James Lamar Roberts was a 17-year-old brother of Paul and Bobby Roberts. James Lamar Roberts went to school in the morning, and worked for Bobby Roberts in the afternoon. Paul and James Lamar Roberts live in Orange County, and it seems that Bobby Roberts lives in the same county.

On 15 April 1958 plaintiffs Long, Johnson and Jackson rode to Durham to work with Paul Roberts, who was driving a pickup truck. Plaintiff Evans rode to work that day with Bobby Roberts, who was driving another automobile. It does not appear with whom plaintiff Swann rode to work. Swann and Evans were working on the house Bobby Roberts was looking after. The other plaintiffs were working on the house where Paul Roberts was. That afternoon it began raining. James Lamar Roberts came up driving the Dodge automobile registered in the name of defendant Bobbitt, and Bobby Roberts told plaintiffs Evans and Swann to get in the automobile with him and go home. Then James Lamar Roberts drove the Dodge to where Paul Roberts was working, and Paul Roberts told plaintiffs Long, Johnson and Jackson to get in the automobile with him and go home. On the way home the wreck occurred in which plaintiffs were injured and James Lamar Roberts was killed. Plaintiff Swann testified: 'James worked there for Bobby in the afternoon and was working there this particular afternoon before you all (sic) left.' Plaintiff Evans testified: 'James Roberts went to school in the morning and in the afternoon he worked on the job. * * * I had ridden with James Roberts in this Dodge automobile before. I had ridden in the pickup with Bobby and Paul and in the station wagon.'

Plaintiffs Evans, Johnson, Swann and Jackson upon being recalled as witnesses testified on recross-examination in substance that it was part of the understanding and arrangement with Bobby Roberts that he would furnish them transportation to and from their homes in Orange County to Durham, and he did so by himself or by an employee. Plaintiff Long upon being recalled as a witness testified on recrossexamination: 'I rode down to Durham with Mr. Roberts every day that I went and home with him every day. We didn't have any arrangement that way but there was another boy who would bring me back in the evening. He worked for Mr. Roberts too. He never told me that it was our understanding or arrangement that either Mr. Roberts or one of his employees would see that I got there and bring me back, but that is the way that we usually and customarily did it. I was expecting the first time that I went for one of his employees to come and take me to the job. I didn't have any way to go and I was expecting someone to come by and pick me up. I knew the boy was coming. I had an understanding with the boy that was coming to get me, who was an employee of Mr. Roberts.'

Plaintiff Long had been working for Bobby Roberts three days, although he had worked for him before. It was the first time he had ever ridden with James Lamar Roberts. Plaintiff Evans had ridden with James Lamar Roberts before, but he didn't pick him up very often to take him home. It was the first time plaintiff Johnson had ridden with James Lamar Roberts; usually, he and plaintiffs Jackson and Long rode together on a truck. Plaintiff Jackson had ridden with James Lamar Roberts dozens of times.

The defendants called to the stand two witnesses, the defendant Bobbitt and Paul Roberts.

Defendant Bobbitt's testimony is to this effect: The Dodge automobile James Lamar Roberts was driving at the time of the wreck was owned by the mother of the Roberts', and the title to it was in her name. In January 1957 Paul Roberts had the title to this automobile put in Bobbitt's name so he could borrow some money on it for Paul Roberts. Paul Roberts told him he had had some financial difficulties, and was unable to borrow money himself. Bobbitt borrowed money on the automobile and turned it over to Paul Roberts. Bobbitt testified: 'I didn't object to Paul Roberts keeping the car and driving it because it was his car.'

Paul Roberts testified in substance: James Lamar Roberts went to...