Aylor v. Barnes
| Decision Date | 04 May 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 308,308 |
| Citation | 242 N.C. 223,87 S.E.2d 269 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Nora Hucherson AYLOR, Mother; Odell Aylor, Deceased Employee, v. L. R. BARNES, Trading as Barnes-Taylor Company; N. C. Pine Lumber Company, Employer; Indemnity Insurance Company of North America, Carrier. |
Barden, Stith & McCotter, New Bern, for defendants-appellants.
Raymond E. Sumrell, Lee & Hancock, New Bern, Nottingham & Somerville, Orange, Va., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appellants, by their assignments of error presented on this appeal, challenge the jurisdiction of the North Carolina Industrial Commission in the premises on the grounds, among others, that at the time of his death, the employee, Odell Aylor, was not a resident of this State withi the meaning of the statute G.S. § 97-36.
In this connection, this Court, in interpreting and applying the provisions of G.S. § 97-36 in the case of Reaves v. EarleChesterfield Mill Co., 216 N.C. 462, 5 S.E.2d 305, 306, opinion by Seawell, J., decalred that
And it is a well-settled rule in respect to proceedings under the North Carolina Workmen's Compensation Act, that the claimant has the burden of proving that his or her claim is compensable under the Act. See Henry v. A. C. Lawrence Leather Co., 231 N.C. 477, 57 S.E.2d 760, and cases cited.
Moreover, while ordinarily findings of fact made by the North Carolina Industrial Commission in respect to liability for compensation under the North Carolina Workmen's Compensation Act are conclusive upon appeal when supported by competent evidence, Francis v. Carolina Wood Turning Co., 204 N.C. 701, 169 S.E. 654, and numerous other cases, yet when the jurisdiction of the Commission to allow a claim for compensation is challenged by an employer, 'the findings of fact made by the commission, on which its jurisdiction is dependent, are not conclusive on the superior court, and that said court has both the power and the duty, on the appeal of either party to the proceeding, to consider all the evidence in the record, and find therefrom the jurisdictional facts, without regard to the findings of fact by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peoples, In re
...class is void for lack of jurisdiction. See, e. g., Askew v. Leonard Tire Co., 264 N.C. 168, 141 S.E.2d 280 (1965); Aylor v. Barnes, 242 N.C. 223, 87 S.E.2d 269 (1955). However, the general rule is that the jurisdiction of a court depends upon the state of affairs existing at the time it is......
-
Hart v. Thomasville Motors, Inc.
...Highway & Public works Comm., 217 N.C. 173, 7 S.E.2d 382; Smith v. Southern Waste Paper Co., 226 N.C. 47, 36 S.E.2d 730; Aylor v. Barnes, 242 N.C. 223, 87 S.E.2d 269. The Judge, thereupon, made these conclusions of law: One, the employer-employee relationship did not exist between plaintiff......
-
Hansel v. Sherman Textiles, 107
...element of compensability is upon the plaintiff. Richards v. Nationwide Homes, 263 N.C. 295, 139 S.E.2d 645 (1965); Aylor v. Barnes, 242 N.C. 223, 87 S.E.2d 269 (1955). It is true that, where the Commission awards compensation for disablement due to an occupational disease encompassed by G.......
-
McGill v. Bison Fast Freight, Inc.
...this State; and further, that decedent's employment 'was not expressly for service exclusively outside of the State.' Aylor v. Barnes, 242 N.C. 223, 87 S.E.2d 269, 270. Incidental mention is made in defendants' brief to their contention 'that the Commission's findings of fact and conclusion......