Montgomery v. Horneytown Fire Dept.

Decision Date03 November 1965
Docket NumberNo. 447,447
Citation265 N.C. 553,144 S.E.2d 586
PartiesMrs. Ola B. MONTGOMERY, Widow, Otis C. Montgomery, Deceased, Employee v. HORNEYTOWN FIRE DEPARTMENT, Employer, the Travelers Insurance Company, Carrier.
CourtNorth Carolina Supreme Court

Sapp & Sapp, Greensboro, for defendant appellees.

PER CURIAM.

G.S. § 97-24 provides in pertinent part: '(a) The right to compensation under this article shall be forever barred unless a claim be filed with the Industrial Commission within two years after the accident, and if death results from the accident, unless a claim be filed with the Commission within one year thereafter.'

This Court has held the requirement that a claim be filed in accord with the provisions of the above statute constitutes 'a condition precedent to the right to compensation, and is not a statute of limitations.' Lineberry v. Town of Mebane, 218 N.C. 737, 12 S.E.2d 525; Whitted v. Palmer-Bee Co., 228 N.C. 447, 46 S.E.2d 109; Coats v. B. & R. Wilson, Inc., 244 N.C. 76, 92 S.E.2d 446.

The undisputed facts disclosed by the record support the conclusion of law reached by the hearing Commissioner, the full Commission and the court below. Hence, the judgment from which this appeal was taken is

Affirmed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Gore v. Myrtle/Mueller, 396PA06.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • December 7, 2007
    ...held to be a condition precedent to the right to compensation and not a statute of limitations. Montgomery v. Horneytown Fire Dep't, 265 N.C. 553, 555, 144 S.E.2d 586, 587 (1965)(per curiam) (citations omitted). We have long held that a condition precedent, unlike subject matter jurisdictio......
  • Cunningham v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • May 6, 2022
    ...precedent to the right to compensation." Gore , 362 N.C. at 38, 653 S.E.2d at 408 (citing Montgomery v. Horneytown Fire Dep't , 265 N.C. 553, 555, 144 S.E.2d 586, 587 (1965) (per curiam)). This "condition precedent establishes a time period in which suit must be brought in order for the [cl......
  • Gore v. Myrtle/Mueller, No. COA05-988 (N.C. App. 7/18/2006)
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • July 18, 2006
    ...to be a condition precedent to the right to compensation and not a statute of limitations." Id. (citing Montgomery v. Horneytown Fire Dep't, 265 N.C. 553, 555, 144 S.E.2d 586, 587 (1965)). "A consequence of finding the timely filing of a claim to be a condition precedent is that the failure......
  • Parker v. Thompson-Arthur Paving Co.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • October 2, 1990
    ...been held to be a condition precedent to the right to compensation and not a statute of limitations. Montgomery v. Horneytown Fire Dept., 265 N.C. 553, 144 S.E.2d 586 (1965); Weston v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 65 N.C.App. 309, 309 S.E.2d 273 (1983), disc. rev. denied, 311 N.C. 407, 319 S.E.2d 2......
  • 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