{
  "id": 8617533,
  "name": "WOODROW CALAHAN, by His Next Friend, J. H. CALAHAN, v. TOM ROBERTS and Wife, ELIZABETH ROBERTS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Calahan ex rel. Calahan v. Roberts",
  "decision_date": "1935-11-20",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "768",
  "last_page": "769",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "208 N.C. 768"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 195,
    "char_count": 2850,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.447,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.898492632084841e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5354431860699215
    },
    "sha256": "4bf822e907e39cea840c4a11754c3d49f4a34158650dcb5a9ab9da4045a73d2e",
    "simhash": "1:9323bd22757abf55",
    "word_count": 451
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:53:32.811961+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Deviu, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "WOODROW CALAHAN, by His Next Friend, J. H. CALAHAN, v. TOM ROBERTS and Wife, ELIZABETH ROBERTS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ScheNck, J.\nIn tbis action, instituted to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to bave been proximately caused by tbe negligence of tbe servant and agent of tbe defendants, tbe plaintiff alleged that tbe defendants employed from \u201cnine to tbirty-five men as laborers in tbe operation\u201d of tbeir sawmill, whereupon tbe defendants demurred to tbe jurisdiction of tbe court on tbe ground that it appeared from tbe face of tbe complaint that tbe ease was cognizable by tbe North Carolina Industrial Commission. Tbe court sustained tbe demurrer and plaintiff excepted and appealed to tbe Supreme Court.\nParagraph 6th of tbe complaint, in part, is as follows: \u201cThat as plaintiff is advised, informed, and now alleges, tbe defendants, at tbe time of tbe injuries complained of, and for more than six months prior thereto, were not operating under tbe Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act. . . .\u201d\nNotwithstanding O. S., 8081 (k), provides that employers and employees shall be presumed to bave accepted tbe provisions of tbe North Carolina Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act, there are provisions in tbe act whereby employers, as well as employees, may except themselves from tbe operation thereof, O. S., 8081 (1), 8081 (v), 8081 (x), and other sections, and tbe presumption of acceptance may be rebutted by tbe proof of nonaeceptanee, and the plaintiff has laid the foundation for such proof by alleging that the \u201cdefendants . . . were not operating under the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act.\u201d We think this allegation was sufficient to carry the case to the jury, and that his Honor erred in sustaining the demurrer.\nBeversed.\nDeviu, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ScheNck, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Watson & Fonts and M. L. Wilson for plaintiff, appellant.",
      "W. 0. Berry and Charles Hutchins for defendants, appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "WOODROW CALAHAN, by His Next Friend, J. H. CALAHAN, v. TOM ROBERTS and Wife, ELIZABETH ROBERTS.\n(Filed 20 November, 1935.)\nMaster and Servant F a \u2014 Where complaint alleges that defendants were not operating under Compensation Act, demurrer on ground that Industrial Commission has exclusive jurisdiction is bad.\nWhere the complaint alleges that defendants employed more than eight employees, but that defendants were not operating under the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act, a demurrer on the ground that it appeared upon the face of the complaint that the case is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Industrial Commission should be overruled, since plaintiff may offer evidence under the allegations of the complaint that the employers and employees had exempted themselves for the operation of the act under the provisions of sees. 8081 (1), (v), (x), notwithstanding the provisions of sec. 8081 (k).\nDevin, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Phillips, J., at July Term, 1935, of Mitchell.\nReversed.\nWatson & Fonts and M. L. Wilson for plaintiff, appellant.\nW. 0. Berry and Charles Hutchins for defendants, appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0768-01",
  "first_page_order": 834,
  "last_page_order": 835
}