Glace v. Pilot Throwing Co.

80 S.E.2d 759, 239 N.C. 668, 1954 N.C. LEXIS 629

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: March 17, 1954
• Docket: 23
• Status: Published

Opinion

Parker, J.

The defendants excepted to the award entered by the Full Commission, and appealed to the Superior Court assigning errors as to a finding of fact and a conclusion of law. On the hearing in the court below the trial judge being of the opinion that the findings of fact and award of the Full Commission are supported by the evidence, in all respects affirmed the award. The defendants’ appeal entries to the judgment in the Superior Court are that the defendants in open court except to the signing of the judgment “for that his Honor erred as a matter of law in affirming the award of the Commission and for other errors to be assigned.” The defendants’ sole assignment of error is that the trial judge “erred in his conclusions of law and in signing the judgment.”

When an award is made by the Full Commission and an appeal is taken, the Superior Court, as an appellate court, reviews only sucb questions as are presented to it by exceptive assignments of errors properly made to the award. On appeal from the Superior Court’s judgment affirming the award to the Supreme Court, we review only sucb exceptive assignments of error as are properly made'to the judgment of the Superior Court alone. Worsley v. Rendering Co., ante, 547; Rader v. Coach Co., 225 N.C. 537, 35 S.E. 2d 609—where many of our cases are cited.

The appeal entries and assignments of error by the defendants in- tbis case do not bring up for review the findings of fact of the Full Commission, or the evidence upon wbicb they are based. Worsley v. Rendering Co., supra; Rader v. Coach Co., supra. Sucb being the field of contest ebosen by the defendants, the judgment will be affirmed, if it is supported by the findings of fact. Worsley v. Rendering Co., supra; Rader v. Coach Co., supra.

Defendants in their brief contend there is not sufficient evidence to support the findings of fact by the Industrial Commission that the claimant received an injury by accident within the meaning of the North Carolina Workmen’s Compensation Act. Tbe defendants have precluded us from considering tbis contention by failing to present it by exception and assignment of error duly entered to the judgment of the Superior Court. Rader v. Coach Co., supra; Wilson v. Charlotte, 206 N.C. 856, 175 S.E. 306; Bakery v. Insurance Co., 201 N.C. 816, 161 S.E. 554; Clark v. Henderson, 200 N.C. 86, 156 S.E. 144.

Tbe defendants’ sole assignment of error presents only a general broadside exception to the judgment of the Superior Court, and under our decisions the judgment should be affirmed, if it is supported by the findings of fact. Worsley v. Rendering Co., supra; Rader v. Coach Co., supra.

After a review of tbe findings of fact made by tbe Full Commission and affirmed in all respects by tbe trial judge, it manifestly appears that tbe findings of fact support tbe judgment entered in tbe Superior Court.

Tbis opinion is not a precedent on the merits of plaintiff’s claim, because we have not been called upon to review the evidence upon which the findings of fact are based. Worsley v. Rendering Co., supra; Rader v. Coach Co., supra.

Tbe judgment of tbe Superior Court is

Affirmed.