Lee Ex Rel. Lee v. Chemical Constraction Co.

156 S.E. 848, 200 N.C. 319, 1931 N.C. LEXIS 313

Opinion

BbogdeN, J.

Was the plaintiff precluded by the Compensation Act of Tennessee from instituting and maintaining an action for damages in the courts of North Carolina?

In Johnson v. R. R., 191 N. C., 75, 131 S. E., 390, this Court held that the Compensation Act of Tennessee did not exclude a citizen .of this State from maintaining in our courts an action for damages for personal injury resulting from actionable negligence. The Court said: “To hold that a citizen of this State, under such circumstances, had no remedy, except that provided by the Tennessee Compensation Act in force in the State in which he was injured, having been induced to go there to work in an emergency, would be a denial of any remedy in the courts of this State. This Court cannot so hold.”

The record discloses that the jurisdiction of the Compensation Board in Tennessee was never invoked by the plaintiff, nor was his claim presented to any sort of court or judicial tribunal. There was a blank order approving the final settlement, but such order was never signed. Hence the paper-writing signed by the plaintiff was no more than a release. Evidence was offered at the trial tending to show that the purported release was secured by means of fraud, and the jury so found. Therefore, we hold that the trial judge ruled correctly when he held that the Compensation Act of Tennessee did not apply.

No error.