Foy v. Maudlin Motor Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Foy v. Maudlin Motor Co.

14 S.E.2d 521, 219 N.C. 864, 1941 N.C. LEXIS 166

DecidedMay 7, 1941

StatusPublished

This text of 14 S.E.2d 521 (Foy v. Maudlin Motor Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Foy v. Maudlin Motor Co., 14 S.E.2d 521, 219 N.C. 864, 1941 N.C. LEXIS 166 (N.C. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This was a proceeding under the Workmen’s Compensation Act to secure compensation for the death of John Henry Foy. *865 The Industrial Commission found as a fact, from the evidence offered, that the injury by accident resulting in the death of the decedent did not arise out of nor in the course of his employment as an automobile salesman, and denied compensation. Upon appeal to the Superior Court the award was affirmed and judgment rendered accordingly. As there was evidence to sustain the finding and conclusion of the Industrial Commission, the judgment below must be affirmed. Lockey v. Cohen, Goldman & Co., 213 N. C., 356, 196 S. E., 342; Buchanan v. Highway Com., 217 N. C., 173, 7 S. E. (2d), 382. The exception to the denial of plaintiffs’ motion to remand the ease to the Industrial Commission cannot be sustained. Byrd v. Lumber Co., 207 N. C., 253, 176 S. E., 572.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

This was a proceeding under the Workmen’s Compensation Act to secure compensation for the death of John Henry Foy. *865 The Industrial Commission found as a fact, from the evidence offered, that the injury by accident resulting in the death of the decedent did not arise out of nor in the course of his employment as an automobile salesman, and denied compensation. Upon appeal to the Superior Court the award was affirmed and judgment rendered accordingly. As there was evidence to sustain the finding and conclusion of the Industrial Commission, the judgment below must be affirmed. Lockey v. Cohen, Goldman & Co., 213 N. C., 356, 196 S. E., 342; Buchanan v. Highway Com., 217 N. C., 173, 7 S. E. (2d), 382. The exception to the denial of plaintiffs’ motion to remand the ease to the Industrial Commission cannot be sustained. Byrd v. Lumber Co., 207 N. C., 253, 176 S. E., 572.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 S.E.2d 521, 219 N.C. 864, 1941 N.C. LEXIS 166, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/foy-v-maudlin-motor-co-nc-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack