Powers v. Robeson County Memorial Hospital
Decision Date | 25 May 1955 |
Docket Number | No. 669,669 |
Citation | 242 N.C. 290,87 S.E.2d 510 |
Parties | Mabel Gertrude POWERS v. ROBESON COUNTY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Inc., and Bernie H. Smith. |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Hackett & Weinstein, Varser, McIntyre & Henry, Lumberton, for plaintiff appellant.
E. J. Britt, McLean & Stacy, Lumberton, Carpenter & Webb, Charlotte, for defendant Hospital, Inc., appellee.
I. Murchison Biggs, Lumberton, for defendant Smith, appellee.
This appeal challenges, in the main, the correctness of the rulings of the trial court in allowing motions of defendants, respectively, for judgment as of nonsuit.
At the outset let it be noted that the admissions made by plaintiff in her pleading are sufficient to bring plaintiff's employment by defendant Hospital, Inc., within the provisions of the North Carolina Workmen's Compensation Act, save and except as to the matter of the number of the employees regularly employed by defendant Hospital, Inc., in the operation of its hospital. G.S. § 97-2(a).
Such admissions are judicial in character, and binding on plaintiff. In Stansbury's North Carolina Evidence, at p. 352, the author states that a judicial admission is See also Wells v. Clayton, 236 N.C. 102, 72 S.E.2d 16, and cases cited.
Moreover, the case on appeal shows that upon trial in Superior Court the uncontradicted evidence is that defendant Hospital, Inc., had not only as many as five, but had many more than five employees regularly employed by it in the operation of its hospital. If the evidence be true, all of the essential elements necessary to bring the employment of plaintiff by defendant Hospital, Inc. within the provisions of the North Carolina Workmen's Compensation Act, and under the jurisdiction of the North Carolina Industrial Commission, are present. See McNair v. Ward, 240 N.C. 330, 82 S.E.2d 85, and cases cited.
Whether the hospital had the required number of employees is a jurisdictional fact to be found by the court. See Aycock v. Cooper, 202 N.C. 500, 163 S.E. 569; Aylor v. Barnes, ante, and cases cited. But in the absence of a request for such finding, it will be assumed...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cox v. Pitt County Transp. Co., 89
...Act, dismissal is proper, for the Industrial Commission has exclusive jurisdiction in such cases. Powers v. Robeson County Memorial Hospital, 242 N.C. 290, 87 S.E.2d 510; Tscheiller v. National Weaving Co., 214 N.C. 449, 199 S.E. 623. Moreover, the Superior Court can acquire jurisdiction in......
-
Jackson v. Bobbitt, 741
...step necessary to give it jurisdiction has been taken.' 21 C.J.S. Courts p. 150. What the Court said in Powers v. Robeson County Memorial Hospital, 242 N.C. 290, 87 S.E.2d 510, 512, is apposite: 'Whether the hospital had the required number of employees is a jurisdictional fact to be found ......
-
Sherwood v. Sherwood
...on proper evidence found facts to support its judgment. Williams v. Bray, 273 N.C. 198, 159 S.E.2d 556 (1968); Powers v. Memorial Hospital, 242 N.C. 290, 87 S.E.2d 510 (1955). The plaintiff is aided by the principle of Omnia rite acta praesumuntur as well as the prima facie presumption of r......
-
Neal v. Clary, 172
...this action for want of jurisdiction. Cox v. Pitt County Transportation Co., 259 N.C. 38, 129 S.E.2d 589; Powers v. Robeson County Memorial Hospital, 242 N.C. 290, 87 S.E.2d 510; Tscheiller v. National Weaving Co., 214 N.C. 449, 199 S.E. When this appeal was argued in this Court, the plaint......