Huffman v. Douglas Aircraft Co., 235

• Decision Date: 09 October 1963
• Docket Number: No. 235,235
• Citation: 132 S.E.2d 614,260 N.C. 308
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: Benjamin M. HUFFMAN, Employee, v. DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT COMPANY, Inc., Employer, and Firemen's Fund Indemnity Company, Carrier.

Page 614

132 S.E.2d 614

260 N.C. 308

Benjamin M. HUFFMAN, Employee, v. DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT COMPANY, Inc., Employer, and Firemen's Fund Indemnity Company, Carrier.

No. 235

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Oct. 9, 1963

Benjamin M. Huffman, in pro. per.

Carpenter, Webb & Golding and John A. Mraz, Charlotte, N. C., for defendants.

PER CURIAM.

This is a proceeding pursuant to the workmen's Compensation Act. Plaintiff and defendant employer were subject to and bound by the Act on 17 July 1959. Defendant Indemnity Company was insurance carrier for employer. Plaintiff claims that his back was injured in an accident which arose out of and in the course of his employment. He asserts that the injury occurred on 17 July 1959 while he was pushing a cart up a ramp. He continued to work after that date until about 21 September 1959 when he entered a hospital for surgery. His condition was diagnosed as spondylolisthesis. He returned to work the last of November, 1959. He filed claim with the Industrial Commission early in 1961, and there was a hearing before Commissioner Mercer at Charlotte on 8 January 1962. The hearing Commissioner filed his opinion and award on 27 February 1962, holding that claimant's injury did not result from accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, and denying compensation. The full Commission sustained the hearing Commissioner, and the superior court affirmed. Plaintiff gave notice of appeal to Supreme Court.

After the hearing in superior court plaintiff's counsel, by leave of court, withdrew. Plaintiff undertook to prepare and perfect his case on appeal without the assistance of an attorney--he explains that he could not secure other counsel and the Charlotte Legal Aid Service declined to assist him because of the expense involved, they having no funds available for this purpose. The purported case on appeal by plaintiff does not contain in any form the evidence heard by Commissioner Mercer, and does not set out any of the proceeding before or awards of the hearing commissioner or the full Commission. It contains no assignments of error, in any form, related directly to exceptions taken (if any were taken) in superior court. It contains merely the judgment of the superior court, recitals of extra factual matters of fragmentary nature designed to supplement the evidence introduced before the hearing commissioner, and argumentative discourses, most of which are irrelevant to any legal questions which might be raised on this appeal. On motion of defendant, the superior court dismissed the appeal for failure of plaintiff to serve a case on appeal. Defendants have filed a motion in Supreme Court to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that no case on appeal has been served on them, no case on appeal has been settled by the judge, the purported record on appeal in Supreme Court does not comply with the rules governing appeals, and plaintiff's brief was not filed in apt time. The motion must be allowed if the decisions of this Court and its applicable rules are to be observed and followed.

Plaintiff appeared in Supreme Court in propria persona at the time set for argument of the appeal, offered to argue the case and insisted that he had done all within his knowledge and means to have his appeal properly...