Farr v. Babcock Lumber & Land Co, (No. 594.)
| Decision Date | 21 December 1921 |
| Docket Number | (No. 594.) |
| Citation | 109 S.E. 833 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | FARR. v. BABCOCK LUMBER & LAND CO. |
Exceptions and Appeal from Superior Court, Graham County; Harding, Judge.
Action by Ernest Parr against the Bab-cock Lumber & Land Company. Order overruling motion for nonsuit as to some of the causes of action and defendant excepts and appeals. Appeal dismissed.
The plaintiff is a resident of Graham county, and the defendant is a foreign corporation engaged in the manufacture of lumber, with plants in Tennessee. The defendant owned timber lands in Graham county, and operated a railroad for hauling logs from Graham to its plants. The defendant had camps, a hospital, and an office in Graham county. The plaintiff, an employee of the defendant, was injured while in the prosecution of the work assigned him. The complaint states four causes of action: (1) Defendant's failure to provide for plaintiff a safe place in which to work; (2) defendant's failure to keep a physician at the camp to attend plaintiff after he was injured; (3) defendant's employment of an incompetent physician; (4) defendant's negligent failure to provide plaintiff transportation to his home from the junction on the road of defendant and Knoxville Power Company. Plaintiff alleged that defendant had undertaken to provide for the plaintiff and other employees a competent physician and surgeon when needed, and made a monthly charge or assessment which was deducted from the employees' wages.
The defendant denied the plaintiff's material allegations and alleged that the contract of employment was made in Tennessee and subject to the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act (Laws 1919, c. 123) passed by the General Assembly of Tennessee on April 15, 1919, and made effective from July 1, 1919.
The defendant contended that, upon the face of the pleadings—it having been agreed that the contract of employment had been made in Tennessee—the court had no jurisdiction. The court sustained the motion, as to the first cause of action, and overruled it as to the second, third, and fourth. Upon the intimation of the court the plaintiff submitted to a nonsuit as to the first cause, and did not appeal. The court further adjudged that the trial should proceed upon the second, third, and fourth causes. The defendant excepted and appealed.
Merrimon, Adams & Johnston, of Ashe-ville, for appellant.
R. L. Phillips and T. M. Jenkins, both of Robbinsville, for appellee.
ADAMS, J. [1] His honor held that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bradford Electric Light Co. v. Clapper
...allowed in one state was not sufficient, additional compensation might be recovered in another state, citing Farr v. Babcock Lumber Co., 182 N. C. 725, 109 S. E. 833, and Rorvik v. North Pac. Lumber Co., 99 Or. 58, 190 P. 331, 195 P. 163. But on careful examination of the facts it will be f......
-
North Carolina Consumers Power, Inc. v. Duke Power Co.
...stated: 'No appeal lies from a refusal to dismiss an action. Goldsboro v. Holmes, 183 N.C. 203, 111 S.E. 1; Farr v. Babcock Lumber & Sand Co., 182 N.C. 725, 109 S.E. 833; Goode v. Rogers, 126 N.C. 62, 35 S.E. 185. In such case there is no judgment--only the refusal of a judgment. Brandhaw v......
-
Johnson v. Pilot Life Ins. Co, 94.
......120JOHNSON.v.PILOT LIFE INS. CO.No. 94.Supreme Court of North Carolina.March 1, ...Holmes, 183 N.C. 203, 111 S.E. 1; Farr v. Bab-cock Lbr. Co., 182 N.C. 725, 109 S.E. ......
-
Johnson v. Catlett
...where the employer of plaintiff's intestate has discharged its liability under the Virginia Act. The cases of Farr v. Babcock Lumber & Land Co., 182 N.C. 725, 109 S.E. 833, Johnson v. Carolina C. & O. R. Co., 191 N.C. 75, 131 S.E. 390, and Lee v. Chemical Construction Co., 200 N.C. 319, 156......