Brown v. L. H. Bottoms Truck Lines

• Decision Date: 11 December 1946
• Docket Number: 673
• Citation: 40 S.E.2d 476,227 N.C. 65
• Parties: BROWN et al. v. L. H. BOTTOMS TRUCK LINES, Inc., et al.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

40 S.E.2d 476

227 N.C. 65

BROWN et al. v. L. H. BOTTOMS TRUCK LINES, Inc., et al.

No. 673

Supreme Court of North Carolina

December 11, 1946

Claim for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act G.S. s 97-1 et seq., for the death of James F. Brown, alleged to have resulted from accidental injury while in the employment of defendant Truck Lines.

The award by the Industrial Commission was in favor of claimants. The defendants noted exceptions, and appealed to the Superior Court.

In the Superior Court the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Industrial Commission were approved and affirmed the court holding that deceased's death resulted from injuries by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment by the defendant Truck Lines. Appeal entries 'To the foregoing ruling, the defendants except and to the signing thereof again except and give notice of appeal to the Supreme Court. ' Assignments of error: 'The only exceptions are to the judgment of Judge Pless, findings of fact, and conclusions of law.'

Charles W. Taylor and Ehringhaus & Ehringhaus, all of Raleigh for appellants.

Wm. E. Comer, of Greensboro, for appellees.

DEVIN Justice.

The question for decision on the defendants' appeal in this case is that presented by their exception to the judgment below, and 'to the signing thereof.' The only exceptions pointed out in appellants' assignments of errors are 'to the judgment of Judge Pless, findings of fact, and conclusions of law.'

Limiting our consideration to the exceptions thus brought forward on the appeal, it follows that many of the questions debated on the argument are not presented for decision. The exception to the judgment raises only the question whether the facts found are sufficient to support the judgment. Lee v. Board of Adjustment, 226 N.C. 107, 37 S.E.2d 128. An exception to the signing of the judgment presents only the question whether error appears on the face of the record. King v. Rudd, 226 N.C. 156, 37 S.E.2d 116; Crissman v. Palmer, 225 N.C. 472, 35 S.E.2d 422; Query v. Gate City Life Ins. Co., 218 N.C. 386, 11 S.E.2d 139.

In Rader v. Queen City Coach Co., 225 N.C. 537, 35 S.E.2d 609, 610, the applicable principles were stated as follows: 'The defendants excepted to the judgment in the court below. This is the only exception appearing in the record. Defendants' only assignment of error is in the following language: ' The defendants assign as error the approval and affirmation of the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the North Carolina Industrial Commission as will appear by Judgment in the record.' The exception to the judgment presents the single question whether the facts found and admitted are sufficient to support the judgment. * * * It is insufficient to bring up for review the findings of fact or the evidence upon which they are based. * * * On an appeal to this Court from the judgment of the Superior Court affirming an award of the Industrial Commission, this Court may consider and pass on only the contention of the appellant that there was error in matters of law at the hearing in the Superior Court. This...