{
  "id": 8628560,
  "name": "MRS. RUTH HOWELL HOLMES, Widow of S. T. HOLMES, Deceased, v. M. G. BROWN COMPANY, INC., Employer, and LUMBER MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY OF NEW YORK, Carrier",
  "name_abbreviation": "Holmes v. M. G. Brown Co.",
  "decision_date": "1935-02-27",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "785",
  "last_page": "786",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "207 N.C. 785"
    }
  ],
  "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": "202 N. C., 860",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8630221
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/202/0860-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "204 N. C., 79",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8611551
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/204/0079-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "198 N. C., 723",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8619113
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/198/0723-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 281,
    "char_count": 5099,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.469,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.095626876101068e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5058493757744177
    },
    "sha256": "d1d8887970a138d98abe615e506cec58bee614370c24801f0ec55bade0dbb776",
    "simhash": "1:0483e1d1a8633b27",
    "word_count": 840
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:17:31.653514+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "MRS. RUTH HOWELL HOLMES, Widow of S. T. HOLMES, Deceased, v. M. G. BROWN COMPANY, INC., Employer, and LUMBER MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY OF NEW YORK, Carrier."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "SchbNCK, J.\n\u201cThe condition antecedent to compensation is the occurrence of an (1) injury by accident (2) arising out of and (3) in the course of employment.\u201d Conrad v. Foundry Co., 198 N. C., 723. The first and third antecedent occurrences are found for the plaintiff, but both the hearing Commissioner and the Industrial Commission found that the death of the deceased did not arise out of his employment, which finding, since it is supported by competent evidence, was binding upon the Superior Court and is binding upon us. Winberry v. Farley Stores, Inc., 204 N. C., 79; Webb v. Tomlinson, 202 N. C., 860, and cases there cited.\nThe judge of the Superior Court was bound by the findings of fact of the Commission, and was without authority to add thereto or to take therefrom, by reason of any concession made by the parties as to the meaning of such findings interpreted in the light of the evidence. However, if his Honor predicated his judgment upon any conception that such concession in any way effected the findings of fact it was harmless error, since the same result, namely, an affirmation of the judgment of the Commission, should have been reached upon the facts found, which were conclusive.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "SchbNCK, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Herbert Leary and McMullan & McMullan for appellant.",
      "Walter Iloyle and W. D. Pruden for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MRS. RUTH HOWELL HOLMES, Widow of S. T. HOLMES, Deceased, v. M. G. BROWN COMPANY, INC., Employer, and LUMBER MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY OF NEW YORK, Carrier.\n(Filed 27 February, 1935.)\n1. Master and Servant F lb\u2014\nEach of the antecedent elements of an injury by accident, which arises out of and in the course of employment, is necessary to an award of compensation under the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act.\n3. Master and Servant F i \u2014 Findings of Industrial Commission supported by competent evidence are binding upon courts upon appeal. '\nThe Industrial Commission found upon competent supporting evidence that claimant\u2019s injury did not arise out of his employment. Upon appeal the Superior Court interpreted this finding in the light of the evidence before the Commission, but reached the same conclusion: Held, the finding of the Commission was binding on the court, and it was without authority to interpret the finding in the light of the evidence, but as the same result was reached the error was harmless.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Moore, Special Judge, at December Term, 1934, of ChowaN.\nAffirmed.\nThis was a proceeding brought under the 'Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act by the dependent widow of S. T. Holmes to determine the liability of employer and carrier for the death of her husband.\nThe evidence tends to show that the deceased, an employee, suffered fatal injury while in the course of his employment; that said fatal injury was inflicted by a pistol in the hands of one Short, who immediately killed himself with the same pistol. From the evidence more than one inference might reasonably have been drawn, and the hearing Commissioner found \u201cas a fact that the death of-ithe deceased was not the result of an accident which arose out of and in the course of his employment,\u201d and issued an award denying compensation and dismissing the claim.\nFrom the award by the hearing Commissioner the plaintiff appealed to the full Commission, which found as a fact \u201cthat the murder of the deceased did not arise out of his employment,\u201d and concluded that \u201ccompensation was properly denied.\u201d\nFrom the full Commission the plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court. The judgment of the Superior Court contains the following: \u201c. . . It being conceded by the plaintiff and the defendants that the evidence before the hearing Commissioner and before the Industrial Commission was uncontradicted and undisputed, and that the facts are as the evidence tends to show, and that the findings of the hearing Commissioner and the Industrial Commission should be interpreted in connection with said undisputed evidence and, so interpreted, mean that in the mind of J. J. Short, murderer of S. T. Holmes, deceased, there was a connection between the murder and the employment, growing out of the fact that Holmes had spoken to Short about taking too long on trips to Norfolk for his employer, and out of the fact that Short erroneously and irrationally thought that Holmes was responsible for reductions in Short\u2019s earnings and for the conditions under which Short was working, but that such connection was an irrational one, and due to the abnormal and disordered condition of Short\u2019s mind, and further that there was no personal grievance on the part of Short against Holmes disconnected with the employment, and further, the murder was committed in the course of the employment.\u201d It is then adjudged, \u201cupon consideration of the above and of the evidence offered before the hearing Commissioner and the Industrial Commission, and of the findings of the hearing Commissioner and the Industrial Commission, as herein conceded and interpreted, . . .\u201d that the award he affirmed and the claim dismissed.\nFrom the judgment of the Superior Court the plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning error.\nHerbert Leary and McMullan & McMullan for appellant.\nWalter Iloyle and W. D. Pruden for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0785-01",
  "first_page_order": 853,
  "last_page_order": 854
}