Francis v. Carolina Wood Turning Co

Decision Date14 June 1933
Docket NumberNo. 654.,654.
Citation204 N. C. 701,169 S.E. 654
CourtNorth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesFRANCIS. v. CAROLINA WOOD TURNING CO. et al.

Appeal from Superior Court, Swain County; Sink, Judge.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Joseph S. Francis, employee, by his guardian, W. L. Francis, opposed by the Carolina Wood Turning Company, employer, and the Consolidated Underwriters, insurance carrier. An order of the Industrial Commission dismissed the proceeding, and on appeal the superior court reversed the order and adjudged that the employee was entitled to compensation, and the employer and insurance carrier appeal.

Judgment modified and, as modified, affirmed.

This is a proceeding begun and prosecuted before the North Carolina Industrial Commission for compensation under the provisions of the North Carolina Workmen's Compensation Act (Pub. Laws 1929, c. 120, as amended).

The facts found by Commissioner Wilson at a hearing before him on May 9, 1932, and approved by the full commission on plaintiff's appeal from his order dismissing the proceeding, are as follows:

"1. The Carolina Wood Turning Company and its regular employees are subject to the provisions of the North Carolina Workmen's Compensation Act.

"2. The Consolidated Underwriters was, on September 2, 1932, the insurance carrier which had insured the liability of the Caro lina Wood Turning Company under the North Carolina Workmen's Compensation Act.

"3. The plaintiff, Joseph S. Francis, on September 2, 1932, sustained a serious injury while working at a table in the defend ant employer's plant.

"4. The plaintiff was totally disabled for sixty days immediately following the injury, and has lost the use of the first, second, third and fourth fingers of his left hand; his average weekly wage was $11.45.

"5. The accident resulting in injury to the plaintiff did not arise out of and in the course of his employment, as plaintiff at the time of the accident was not an employee within the meaning of the North Carolina Workmen's Compensation Act."

On the foregoing facts, Commissioner Wilson concluded as a matter of law that the North Carolina Industrial Commission was without jurisdiction of the proceeding, and ordered that the same be dismissed for that reason. This order was affirmed by the full commission, and the plaintiff appealed to the judge of the superior court of Swain county.

At the hearing of plaintiff's appeal, the judge of the superior court found as a fact from all the evidence that the plaintiff was an employee of the defendant Carolina Wood Turning Company at the time of the accident, and that his injuries were the result of an accident which arose out of and in the course of his employment. Upon these findings of fact, it was ordered and adjudged that the order of the North Carolina Industrial Commission dismissing the proceeding be and the same was reversed; and it was further ordered and adjudged that the plaintiff is entitled to compensation for his injuries to be paid by the defendants in accordance with the provisions of the North Carolina Workmen's Compensation Act.

From this judgment, the defendants appealed to the Supreme Court.

Johnston & Horner, of Asheville, for appellants.

T. D. Bryson, Jr., of Rryson City, and E. O. Bryson, of Durham, for appellee.

CONNOR, Justice.

There was evidence at the hearing of this proceeding before Commissioner Wilson, tending to show that the plaintiff, Joseph S. Fran cis, was an employee of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • Barber v. Minges, 383.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • June 2, 1943
    ...reached in the Pilley case is correct. The controversy in the Francis case came here on appeal twice--Francis v. Carolina Wood Turning Co, 204 N.C. 701, 169 S.E. 654, and Francis v. Carolina Wood Turning Co, 208 N.C. 517, 181 S.E. 628, supra. Too tedious to repeat here, the history of the c......
  • Barber v. Minges
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • June 2, 1943
    ...denied, and no appeal taken. In fact, as we shall presently see, there was one appeal taken after compensation was denied in the Francis case, but the facts in these cases are far identical. The facts in the Pilley case are not stated in the report. They may be found in I.C. File 22050, Doc......
  • Hart v. Thomasville Motors, Inc.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • May 9, 1956
    ...time of his injury. This the Judge had the right and power to do. Aycock v. Cooper, 202 N.C. 500, 163 S.E. 569; Francis v. Carolina Wood Truning Co., 204 N.C. 701, 169 S.E. 654; Miller v. Roberts, supra; Young v. Maryland Mica Co., 212 N.C. 243, 193 S.E. 285; Buchanan v. State Highway & Pub......
  • Pearson v. Peerless Flooring Co.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • January 10, 1958
    ...Barnes, 242 N.C. 223, 87 S.E. 2d 269, which cite, inter alia, Aycock v. Cooper, 202 N.C. 500, 163 S.E. 569, and Francis v. Carolina Wood Turning Co., 204 N.C. 701, 169 S.E. 654. These cases support the view that when a defendant-employer challenges the jurisdiction of the Industrial Commiss......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT