Willingham v. Bryan Rock & Sand Co.
| Decision Date | 19 May 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 378,378 |
| Citation | 240 N.C. 281,82 S.E.2d 68 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | WILLINGHAM, v. BRYAN ROCK & SAND CO. et al. |
T. G. Furr, Salisbury, for plaintiff appellee.
R. E. Wardlow, Pierce & Blakeney, Charlotte, for defendants Bryan Rock & Sand Co. and Textile Ins. Co., appellees.
Linn & Shuford, Hudson & Hudson, Salisbury, for defendant Salisbury Granite Industries, Inc., appellant.
At the outset let it be noted that no appeal was taken from the ruling of the North Carolina Industrial Commission that, upon the facts found by the hearing commissioner, and adopted by the Commission, it follows as a matter of law that the defendant Bryan Rock & Sand Company and its insurance carrier must be discharged from liability to plaintiff on his claim filed against it, and the claim be denied, and dismissed. So, this ruling is not presented for decision on this appeal. Indeed, attorney for claimant in brief filed here does not take issue with the ruling.
Now turning to appeal of Salisbury Granite Industries, Inc.: It is stated in brief of this appellant that the questions involved are these:
These questions purport to be predicated upon assignments of error stated as follows: (1) 'That the court erred in affirming and sustaining the award of the Industrial Commission for that no claim was filed against the defendant Salisbury Granite Industries, Inc., as required and contemplated by G.S. 97-58, and for that there is no evidence in the record to sustain the award, Exception No. 1, which is the defendant Salisbury Granite Industries, Inc.'s Assignment of Error No. 1 (R. pp 53, 54, 55, 61, 62, 63).'
(2)'That the court erred in signing the judgment as appears in the record for that no claim was filed against the defendant Salisbury Granite Industries, Inc., as required and contemplated by G.S. 97-58, and for that there is no evidence in the record to sustain the award and the judgment of the court, Exception No. 2, which is the defendant Salisbury Granite Industries Inc.'s Assignment of Error No. 2 (R. pp 53, 54, 55, 61, 62, 63).'
However, the record and case on appeal failed to show exceptions as bases for these assignments. The exceptions to the award of the Full Commission are insufficient to present these matters to the Superior Court, and the exceptions to the judgment of the Superior Court are insufficient to present them to this Court. See Worsley v. S. & W. Rendering Co. (Sugg v. S. & W. Rendering Co.), 239 N.C. 547, 80 S.E.2d 467, and Beaver v. Crawford Paint Co., N.C., 82 S.E.2d 113.
In the Worsley case, Barnhill, C. J., recently restated the rules of procedure as approved in decisions of this Court as to appeals in Workmen's Compensation cases, (1) from the North Carolina Industrial Commission to the Superior Court, and (2) from the Superior Court to the Supreme Court. And in the Weaver case, supra, Denny, J., amplifies the subject. What is so recently said in these cases is applicable to case in hand, and need not be rehashed. The decisions of this Court uniformly hold that when it is claimed that findings of fact made by the Industrial Commission are not supported by the evidence, the exceptions and assignments of error in relation thereto must specifically and distinctly point out the alleged error.
Hence on an appeal 'for errors in findings of fact unsupported by any evidence in the record, and for errors of law in the review of the award by the Full Commission', as in the case in hand, the exceptions are too general, and, therefore, are insufficient to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings of the Commission or any one of them. Thus the appeal to the Superior Court presented for review the single question whether the facts found by the Commission support the decision and award. See Greene v. Spivey, 236 N.C. 435, 73 S.E.2d 488; also Town of Burnsville v. Boone,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Snyder v. Department of Labor and Industries
...219 Cal.App.2d 634, 33 Cal.Rptr. 442 (1963); Blue Diamond Coal Co. v. Napier, 337 S.W.2d 879 (Ky.1960); Willingham v. Bryan Rock and Sand Co., 240 N.C. 281, 82 S.E.2d 68 (1954); Leva v. Caron Granite Co., 84 R.I. 360, 124 A.2d 534 (1956); Asarco, Inc. v. Raley, 603 S.W.2d 113 (Tenn.1980); P......
-
Lowery v. McCormick Asbestos Co., 119
...of its application to a single case, is frequently unfair to employers as the following will illustrate: Willingham v. Bryan Rock & Sand Co., 240 N.C. 281, 82 S.E.2d 68 (1954) (Sole liability assigned to last injurious exposure employer for whom claimant worked only 4 1/2 months. The claim ......
-
Pearson v. Peerless Flooring Co.
...appellees. BOBBITT, Justice. The judgment as to Moore and its carrier is final. Plaintiff did not appeal. Cf. Willingham v. Bryan Rock & Sand Co., 240 N.C. 281, 82 S.E.2d 68. Moreover, plaintiff, in his brief, says: 'There is no evidence which could possibly support the conclusion that Pear......
-
Surratt v. Chas. E. Lambeth Ins. Agency, Inc.
...and cases cited; also Medical College of Virginia, Medical Division v. Maynard, 236 N.C. 506, 73 S.E. 2d 315; Willingham v. Bryan Rock & Sand Co., 240 N.C. 281, 82 S.E.2d 68; Convent of Sisters of St. Joseph of Chestnut Hill v. City of Winston Salem, 243 N.C. 316, 90 S.E.2d 879, and cases t......