Lineberry v. Town Of Mebane

• Decision Date: 20 December 1940
• Docket Number: No. 744.,744.
• Citation: 12 S.E.2d 252,218 N.C. 737
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: LINEBERRY . v. TOWN OF MEBANE.

12 S.E.2d 252

218 N.C. 737

LINEBERRY .

v.TOWN OF MEBANE.

No. 744.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 20, 1940.

Appeal from Superior Court, Alamance County; Henry L. Stevens, Judge.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Charles P. Lineberry, claimant, opposed by the Town of Mebane, employer.From a judgment affirming an order of the Industrial Commission, denying compensation claimant appeals.

Affirmed.

Claim for compensation by injured employee under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

The claimant, an infant over 18 years of age, an employee of the defendant, noninsurer, on July 24, 1939, filed with the North Carolina Industrial Commission, a report of an injury alleged to have been sustained by him on May 31, 1938, while working for the defendant.The defendant pleaded sec. 24 of Ch. 120, P.L. 1929, in bar of plaintiff's right to recover.

It appearing to the Industrial Commission and the commission having found as a fact that claim for compensation was not filed by the plaintiff within one year after the alleged accident, it denied compensation.On appeal to the Superior Court the order of the Industrial Commission denying compensation for failure of the plaintiff to file his claim within twelve months after the accident was affirmed.The plaintiff excepted and appealed.

Long, Long & Barrett, of Burlington, for plaintiff-appellant.

Thos. C. Carter, of Burlington, and June A. Crumpler, of Mebane, for defendant-appellee.

BARNHILL, Justice.

The provisions of sec. 24, Ch. 120, P.L. 1929, constitute a condition precedent to the right to compensation, and is not a statute of limitations.Winslow v. Carolina Conference Ass'n, 211 N.C. 571, 191 S.E. 403.If an injured employee fails to file notice of his claim within twelve months after the date he sustains an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, he has no right to compensation under the express terms of the statute.

The infancy of the plaintiff does not toll this provision of the statute.This has been the consistent holding of the Industrial Commission and is, in our opinion, a correct interpretation of the law.71 C.J. 1024, § 799;Oklahoma Pipe Line Co. v. Farrell160 Okl. 58, 15 P.2d 599;Decker v. Pouvail-smith Corp., 252 N.Y. 1, 168 N.E. 442.

A proceeding before the Industrial Commission for compensation is not, strictly speaking, an action.Many of the prerequisites of a lawsuit are not required in a proceeding before the commission.Thus it is that an...