Wimbish v. Home Detective Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Wimbish v. Home Detective Co.

164 S.E. 344, 202 N.C. 800, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 226

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedJune 15, 1932

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 164 S.E. 344 (Wimbish v. Home Detective 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

Wimbish v. Home Detective Co., 164 S.E. 344, 202 N.C. 800, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 226 (N.C. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

BbogdeN, J.

Was the deceased at the time of his death on 6 June engaged in the course of employment of the defendant, or was he mating the trip to Raleigh with a young lady in order to attend a dance in Raleigh that night?

The Industrial Commission found “that the accident and death of the claimant did not arise out of and in the course of the employment.” “The findings of fact made by the North Carolina Industrial Commis'sion, in a proceeding pending before the said Commission, are conclusive on an appeal from said Commission to the Superior Court, only when there was evidence before the Commission tending to show that the facts aré as found by the Commission. Otherwise, the findings are not conclusive, and the Superior Court, on an appeal from the award of the Commission, has jurisdiction to review all the evidence for the purpose of determining whether as a matter of law there was any evidence tendiñg to support the finding by the Commission.” Dependents of Poole v. Sigmon, ante, 112. The last utterance by this Court upon the question involved appears in Greer v. Laundry Co., ante, 129. The Court said: “In the instant case, it may be conceded that there was evidence tending to show that plaintiff had suffered an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, resulting in the loss of an eye. However, there was also evidence tending to show that the loss of plaintiff’s eye was not the result of an accident but of a disease which was not caused or aggravated by the accident which arose out of or in the course of his employment. The conflicting evidence was considered by both Commissioner Dorsett and by the full Commission. The findings of fact made by Commissioner Dorsett and approved by the full Commission were conclusive and binding on the judge of the Superior Court.”

So, in- the case at bar the evidence was conflicting and more than one inference could be drawn therefrom by a fair and impartial mind. Consequently. the trial judge ruled correctly.

Affirmed.

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

BbogdeN, J.

Was the deceased at the time of his death on 6 June engaged in the course of employment of the defendant, or was he mating the trip to Raleigh with a young lady in order to attend a dance in Raleigh that night?

The Industrial Commission found “that the accident and death of the claimant did not arise out of and in the course of the employment.” “The findings of fact made by the North Carolina Industrial Commis'sion, in a proceeding pending before the said Commission, are conclusive on an appeal from said Commission to the Superior Court, only when there was evidence before the Commission tending to show that the facts aré as found by the Commission. Otherwise, the findings are not conclusive, and the Superior Court, on an appeal from the award of the Commission, has jurisdiction to review all the evidence for the purpose of determining whether as a matter of law there was any evidence tendiñg to support the finding by the Commission.” Dependents of Poole v. Sigmon, ante, 112. The last utterance by this Court upon the question involved appears in Greer v. Laundry Co., ante, 129. The Court said: “In the instant case, it may be conceded that there was evidence tending to show that plaintiff had suffered an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, resulting in the loss of an eye. However, there was also evidence tending to show that the loss of plaintiff’s eye was not the result of an accident but of a disease which was not caused or aggravated by the accident which arose out of or in the course of his employment. The conflicting evidence was considered by both Commissioner Dorsett and by the full Commission. The findings of fact made by Commissioner Dorsett and approved by the full Commission were conclusive and binding on the judge of the Superior Court.”

So, in- the case at bar the evidence was conflicting and more than one inference could be drawn therefrom by a fair and impartial mind. Consequently. the trial judge ruled correctly.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

164 S.E. 344, 202 N.C. 800, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 226, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wimbish-v-home-detective-co-nc-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack