{
  "id": 8613541,
  "name": "W. C. HANKS, Administrator of CURTIS HANKS, Deceased, v. SOUTHERN PUBLIC UTILITIES COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hanks v. Southern Public Utilities Co.",
  "decision_date": "1933-02-08",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "155",
  "last_page": "156",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "204 N.C. 155"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "148 S. E., 241",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "197 N. C., 237",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628188
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/197/0237-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "163 S. E., 569",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "202 N. C., 500",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627293
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/202/0500-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "158 S. E., 383",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "200 N. C., 733",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8625897
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/200/0733-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "162 S. E., 909",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "202 N. C., 400",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8622513,
        8626715
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/203/0865-01",
        "/nc/202/0400-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 258,
    "char_count": 3967,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.459,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.0906712708197395e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8586197496456357
    },
    "sha256": "2719778a9d70fe0d977abec7109e6a5652fc14c3f740945943f04bbbf8156937",
    "simhash": "1:8b7f07c47ce65f47",
    "word_count": 656
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:28.108315+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "W. C. HANKS, Administrator of CURTIS HANKS, Deceased, v. SOUTHERN PUBLIC UTILITIES COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Beogdek, J.\nTbe defendant contended that tbe injury occurred subsequent to tbe enactment of tbe Workmen\u2019s Compensation law, and that as a result tbe cause was cognizable by tbe Industrial Commission. Tbe plaintiff contended that tbe Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act was unconstitutional for that it impaired tbe right of trial by jury, guaranteed by tbe Constitution of North Carolina.\nTbe constitutionality of tbe Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act was upheld in Heavner v. Lincolnton, 202 N. C., 400, 162 S. E., 909. See, also, Hagler v. Highway Commission, 200 N. C., 733, 158 S. E., 383.\nTbe plaintiff alleges in paragraph 10 of tbe complaint that bis intestate bad not accepted tbe provisions of tbe Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act. However, this is immaterial for tbe reason that O. S., 8081 (k) provides in substance that every employer and employee coming within tbe purview of tbe act is presumed to have accepted tbe provisions thereof.\nHowever, tbe demurrer was properly overruled. It does not appear upon tbe face of tbe complaint that tbe Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act applies to tbe defendant. C. S., 8081 (u) provides in subsection (b) that tbe Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act does not apply to casual employees, \u201cnor to any person, firm or private corporation that has regularly in service less than five employees in tbe said business within this State,\u201d etc. Aycock v. Cooper, 202 N. C., 500, 163 S. E., 569. Tbe face of tbe complaint does not disclose that tbe defendant employs more than five men. A demurrer cannot be sustained unless tbe vitiating defect appears upon tbe face of tbe pleadings assailed. Justice v. Sherard, 197 N. C., 237, 148 S. E., 241.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Beogdek, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "T. C. Bowie and, Wm. M. Allen for plaintiff.",
      "Manly, Hendren and Womble for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "W. C. HANKS, Administrator of CURTIS HANKS, Deceased, v. SOUTHERN PUBLIC UTILITIES COMPANY.\n(Filed 8 February, 1933.)\n1. Master* and Servant F a\u2014\nTlie North Carolina Workmen\u2019s Compensation Law is constitutional.\n2. Same\u2014\nUnder the provisions of section 80Sl(k) every employer and employee within the purview of the Compensation Act is presumed to have accepted its provisions.\n3. Same: Pleadings D c \u2014 Vitiating- defect must appear upon face of complaint in order to he available upon demurrer.\nWhere a demurrer is interposed in an action by the administrator, of a deceased employee on the ground that the action is cognizable only by the Industrial Commission, and it does not appear from the face of the complaint that the defendant employed more than five men in this State, section S081 (u), the demurrer is properly overruled, it being necessary that the vitiating defect appear on the face of the complaint in order to be available on demurrer.\nCivil action, before Moore, J., at June Term, 1932, of Wilkes.\nThe plaintiff filed a complaint to recover damages for personal injury. A demurrer thereto was sustained, and thereupon the plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging that his intestate was killed on 6 December, 1929. The cause of death was contact with a guy wire improperly insulated; and it was also alleged that the defendant negligently failed to furnish the deceased with safe and suitable tools and appliances with which to perform his duties. Paragraph 10 of the complaint is as follows: \u201cThat at the time of the grievance herein set forth and at no time prior thereto had the plaintiff\u2019s intestate accepted the provisions of the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act, or by any acts or conduct acquiesced in or agreed to become bound by tbe prolusions thereof.\u201d Tbe defendant demurred to tbe amended complaint for that on 6 December, 1929, tbe date of tbe injury and death, plaintiff\u2019s intestate was employed by tbe defendant \u201cin its business in tbe State of North Carolina, and that bis alleged injury occurred in tbe State of North Carolina, and that such employee was subject to tbe provisions of tbe North Carolina 'Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act.\u201d Tbe demurrer was overruled and tbe defendant appealed.\nT. C. Bowie and, Wm. M. Allen for plaintiff.\nManly, Hendren and Womble for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0155-01",
  "first_page_order": 221,
  "last_page_order": 222
}