{
  "id": 8624960,
  "name": "J. N. BYRD, Employee, v. GLOUCESTER LUMBER COMPANY, Employer, and AMERICAN MUTUAL LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Insurance Carrier",
  "name_abbreviation": "Byrd v. Gloucester Lumber Co.",
  "decision_date": "1934-10-31",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "253",
  "last_page": "256",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "207 N.C. 253"
    }
  ],
  "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": "79 S. E., 690",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "163 N. C., 431",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11272100
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/163/0431-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "138 S. E., 541",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "case_ids": [
        1999076
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/sc/140/0043-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "194 N. C., 186",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8600422
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/194/0186-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 258,
    "char_count": 6421,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.433,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.93480226621631e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9031754360968535
    },
    "sha256": "656dd1a9eef6f1e7b0a56c04bab361218d53ac3944506f65b6b58fb2b090f019",
    "simhash": "1:84948bb82295146f",
    "word_count": 1072
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:17:31.653514+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "J. N. BYRD, Employee, v. GLOUCESTER LUMBER COMPANY, Employer, and AMERICAN MUTUAL LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Insurance Carrier."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OonNob, J.\nThe award of the Industrial Commission in this proceeding, made 11 February, 1930, and, on the facts found by the Commission, denying compensation to the plaintiff, was conclusive as to all questions of fact involved in the proceeding and determined by the Commission. It is so expressly provided by statute. N. C. Code of 1931, sec. 8081 (ppp).\nOn plaintiff\u2019s appeal from the award to the Superior Court, only questions of law involved in the proceeding and decided by the Industrial Commission could be considered. This is also expressly so provided by statute. N. C. Code of 1931, sec. 8081 (ppp). The jurisdiction of the Superior Court is limited to a consideration of questions of law only.\nThere is no provision in the North Carolina Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act authorizing the Superior Court to consider a motion for a rehearing by the Industrial Commission of a, proceeding for compensation, on the ground that since the docketing of an appeal from an award of the Commission, a party to the proceeding has discovered new evidence which supports his contention as to the facts found by the Commission adversely to him, and to remand the proceeding to the Commission for a rehearing.\nFor this reason the appellants in the instant case contend that there was error in the refusal of the judge of the Superior Court to dismiss the motion of the plaintiff, and in the order remanding the proceeding to the Industrial Commission for a rehearing. This contention is not sustained. The judge had the power to consider plaintiff\u2019s motion and, on the facts found by him, in his discretion to grant the motion.\nIt is well settled that this Court, although its jurisdiction is limited by the Constitution of North Carolina to the review, upon appeal, of decisions of the Superior Court upon matters of law or legal inference, has the power to consider a motion for a new trial of an action pending here on appeal, on the ground of newly discovered evidence, and in a proper case to grant the motion. Moore v. Tidwell, 194 N. C., 186, 138 S. E., 541; Johnston v. R. R., 163 N. C., 431, 79 S. E., 690.\nOn this principle we are of opinion, and so hold, that when a proceeding for compensation under the provisions of the North Carolina Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act has been duly docketed in the Superior Court, upon an appeal from an award of the Industrial Commission, the Superior Court has the power in a proper ease to order a rehearing of the proceeding by the Industrial Commission on the ground of newly discovered evidence, and to that end to remand the proceeding to the Commission.\nWhether the judge of the Superior Court shall exercise this power in any proceeding pending in said court rests upon his discretion. His action, therefore, is ordinarily not subject to review by this Court.\nWe find no error in the order in the instant case. It is\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "OonNob, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ralph H. Ramsey, Jr., for plaintiff.",
      "Smothers & Smothers for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "J. N. BYRD, Employee, v. GLOUCESTER LUMBER COMPANY, Employer, and AMERICAN MUTUAL LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Insurance Carrier.\n(Filed 31 October, 1934.)\n1. Master and Servant F i \u2014 Jurisdiction of Superior Court upon appeal from award of Commission is limited to questions of law.\nThe award of the Industrial Commission is conclusive on appeal as to all questions of fact involved in the proceeding and determined by the Commission, and the jurisdiction of the Superior Court is limited to questions of law only. N. C. Code, 8081 (ppp).\n2. Same \u2014 Superior Court has jurisdiction to remand case to Commission for rehearing on ground of newly discovered evidence.\nWhile the Compensation Act contains no express provision authorizing the Superior Court, upon appeal from an award of the Industrial Commission, to remand tbe case to the Commission for a rehearing on the ground of newly discovered evidence, the Superior Court has the discretionary power to do so in proper instances.\n3. Appeal and Error J a\u2014\nOn appeal from an award of the Industrial Commission, a motion to remand the case to the Commission on the ground of newly discovered evidence is addressed to the discretion of the Superior Court, and its determination thereof is not ordinarily reviewable by the Supreme Court.\nAppeal by defendants from Finley, J., at April Term, 1934, of TeaNstlvania.\nAffirmed.\nThis is a proceeding for compensation under the provisions of the North Carolina Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act for an injury which the plaintiff suffered on 2 March, 1929, while he was at work as an employee of the defendant Gloucester Lumber Company.\nThe proceeding was begun before the North Carolina Industrial Commission, and was first heard by Commissioner Dorsett. From the evidence offered at the hearing before him Commissioner Dorsett found that the plaintiff\u2019s disability was not the result of an injury by accident which arose out of and in the course of his employment by the defendant Gloucester Lumber Company. On this finding compensation was denied. The full Commission, on its review of the hearing before Commissioner Dorsett, approved and adopted the findings of fact and conclusions of law made by him, and denied compensation. The plaintiff appealed from the award of the Industrial Commission to the Superior Court of Transylvania County. The appeal was duly docketed in said court. It has not been heard on its merits.\nOn 9 October, 1933, the plaintiff moved in the Superior Court for a rehearing of the proceeding by the Industrial Commission on the ground that since his appeal was docketed in said court he had discovered new evidence in support of his claim for compensation. The defendants moved that the motion of the plaintiff be dismissed on the ground that the court was without jurisdiction to hear plaintiff\u2019s motion for a rehearing of the proceeding by the Industrial Commission on the ground of newly discovered evidence.\nThe proceeding was heard at February Term, 1934, of the Superior Court of Transylvania County, on the motions of the defendants and the plaintiff, respectively.\nThe motion of the defendants that the motion of the plainitff be dismissed was denied.\nThe motion of the plaintiff for a rehearing of the proceeding on the ground of newly discovered evidence was allowed.\nFrom the order of the Superior Court remanding the proceeding to the Industrial Commission, in accordance with the motion-of the plaintiff, the defendants appealed to the Supreme Court.\nRalph H. Ramsey, Jr., for plaintiff.\nSmothers & Smothers for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0253-01",
  "first_page_order": 321,
  "last_page_order": 324
}