Byrd v. Gloucester Lumber Co
| Decision Date | 31 October 1934 |
| Docket Number | No. 163.,163. |
| Citation | 176 S.E. 572,207 N.C. 253 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | BYRD. v. GLOUCESTER LUMBER CO. et al. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Transylvania County; Finley, Judge.
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by J. N. Byrd, employee, against the Gloucester Lumber Company, employer, and the American Mutual Liability Insurance Company, insurance carrier. From an award of the Industrial Commission approving a decision of the Commissioner and denying compensation, plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court. From an order remanding the proceeding to the Industrial Commission in accordance with plaintiff's motion for rehearing on ground of newly discovered evidence, defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
This is a proceeding for compensation under the provisions of the North Carolina Workmen's Compensation Act (Pub. Laws 1929, c. 120 [Code 1931, § 8081[h] et seq.]), for an injury which the plaintiff suffered on March 2, 1929, while he was at work as an employee of the defendant Gloucester Lumber Company.
The proceeding was begun before the North Carolina Industrial Commission, and was first heard by Commissioner Dorsett. From the evidence offered at the hearing before him, Commissioner Dorsett found that the plaintiff's disability was not the result of an injury by accident which arose out of and in the course of his employment by the defendant Gloucester Lumber Company. On this finding, compensation was denied. The full commission on its review of the hearing before Commissioner Dorsett, approved and adopted the findings of fact and conclusions of law made by him, and denied compensation. The plaintiff appealed from the award of the Industrial Commission to the superior court of Transylvania county. The appeal was duly docketed in said court It has not been heard on its merits.
On October 9, 1933, the plaintiff moved in the superior court for a rehearing of the proceeding by the Industrial Commission, on the ground that since his appeal was docketed in said court, he had discovered new evidence in support of his claim for compensation. The defendants moved that the motion of the plaintiff be dismissed on the ground that the court was without jurisdiction to hear plaintiff's motion for a rehearing of the proceeding by the Industrial Commission on the ground of newly discovered evidence.
The proceeding was heard at February term, 1934, of the superior court of Transylvania county, on the motions of the defendants and the plaintiff, respectively.
The motion of the defendants that the motion of the plaintiff be dismissed was denied.
The motion of the plaintiff for a rehearing of the proceeding on the ground of newly discovered evidence was allowed.
From the order of the superior court remanding the proceeding to the Industrial Commission in accordance with the motion of the plaintiff, the defendants appealed to the Supreme Court.
Smathers & Smathers, of Asheville, for appellants.
Ralph H. Ramsey, Jr., of Brevard, for appellee.
The award of the Industrial Commission in this proceeding, made on the 11th day of February, 1930, and on the facts found by the commission, denying compensation to the plaintiff, was conclusive as to all questions of fact involved in the proceeding and determined by the commission. It is so expressly provided by statute. N. C....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blevins v. Teer
...Winberry v. Farley Stores, Inc., 204 N.C. 79, 167 S.E. 475. The cases cited in appellee's brief in support of his contention, Byrd v. Gloucester Lumber Co., supra, and Butts v. Montague Bros., 208 N.C. 186, 179 S.E. 799, upon the power of the court to remand a case to the Industrial Commiss......
-
Thomason v. Red Bird Cab Co.
...Inc., 225 N.C. 580, 35 S.E.2d 869; Winslow v. Carolina Conference Association, 211 N.C. 571, 191 S.E. 403, 408; Byrd v. Gloucester Lumber Co., 207 N.C. 253, 176 S.E. 572. An appeal lies to the supreme court from the judgment entered by the superior court on its review of the award of the in......
-
Buchanan v. State Highway And Pub. Works Comm'n
...894; Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. Motor Co, 216 N.C. 432, 5 S.E.2d 318; Butts v. Montague, 208 N.C. 186, 179 S.E. 799; Byrd v. Lumber Co, 207 N.C. 253, 176 S.E. 572. An examination of the record in the instant case discloses that there was competent evidence to support the findings of the I......
-
Tindall v. American Furniture Co.
... ... this is a matter within the sound discretion of the court ... Byrd v. Gloucester Lumber Co., 207 N.C. 253, 176 ... S.E. 572; Butts v. Montague, 208 N.C. 186, 179 ... ...