Foy v. Maudlin Motor Co.

14 S.E.2d 521, 219 N.C. 864, 1941 N.C. LEXIS 166
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided May 7, 1941·Published

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

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

14 S.E.2d 521 (Foy v. Maudlin Motor Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lockey v. . Cohen, Goldman Co.
196 S.E. 342 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1938)
Buchanan v. State Highway & Public Works Commission
7 S.E.2d 382 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1940)
Byrd v. Gloucester Lumber Co.
176 S.E. 572 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1934)