{ "id": 8624632, "name": "CHARLES P. LINEBERRY v. TOWN OF MEBANE", "name_abbreviation": "Lineberry v. Town of Mebane", "decision_date": "1940-12-20", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "737", "last_page": "738", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "218 N.C. 737" } ], "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": "168 N. E., 442", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "252 N. Y., 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.", "case_ids": [ 1989775 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ny/252/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "160 Okla., 58", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Okla.", "case_ids": [ 6234527 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/okla/160/0058-01" ] }, { "cite": "191 S. E., 403", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "211 N. C., 571", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8628163 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/211/0571-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 259, "char_count": 3919, "ocr_confidence": 0.484, "pagerank": { "raw": 3.770262662389137e-07, "percentile": 0.896086219698523 }, "sha256": "428d17236bc9b61c1e9c5d8759eb19054c5d4d80ed51bb9a273fb901436d3d96", "simhash": "1:d67f6783b8545b23", "word_count": 670 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:22:12.547739+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "CHARLES P. LINEBERRY v. TOWN OF MEBANE." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "BaRNhiui/, L\nTbe provisions of sec. 24, cb. 120, Public Laws 1929, constitute a condition precedent to tbe right to compensation, and is not a statute of limitations. Winslow v. Carolina Conference Assn., 211 N. C., 571, 191 S. E., 403. If an injured employee fails to file notice of bis claim witbin twelve months after tbe date be sustains an injury by accident arising out of and in tbe course of bis employment, be has no right to compensation under tbe express terms of tbe statute.\nTbe infancy of tbe plaintiff does not toll this provision of tbe statute. This has been tbe consistent bolding of tbe Industrial Commission and is, in our opinion, a correct interpretation of tbe law. 71 C. J., 1024, sec. 799; Okla. Pipe Line Co. v. Farrell, 160 Okla., 58, 15 P. (2d), 599; Decker v. Pouvailsmith Corp., 252 N. Y., 1, 168 N. E., 442.\nA proceeding' before tbe Industrial Commission for compensation is not, strictly speaking, an action. Many of tbe prerequisites of a lawsuit are not required in a proceeding before tbe Commission. Thus it is that an infant may prosecute bis claim directly without tbe appointment of a next friend or guardian, as claimant is here undertaking to do.\nTbe limitations of time provided in tbe Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act for tbe giving of notice or for making claim thereunder is tolled only in behalf of a person who is mentally incompetent or is a minor dependent, see. 49, cb. 120, Public Laws 1929; unless tbe tolling of time is extended to include injured employees under 18 years of age. As more than twelve months expired after claimant became 18 years of age before claim was filed, this question is not presented for decision.\nTbe judgment below is\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "BaRNhiui/, L" } ], "attorneys": [ "Long, Long & Barrett for plaintiff, appellant.", "Thos. G. Carter and June A. Grumpier for defendant, appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "CHARLES P. LINEBERRY v. TOWN OF MEBANE.\n(Filed 20 December, 1940.)\n1. Master and Servant \u00a7 47\u2014\nTbe requirement that an injured employee file notice of bis claim witbin twelve months from tbe date of injury, sec. 24, ch. 120, Public Laws of 1929, is not a statute of limitations, but a condition precedent to the right to compensation.\n3. Same\u2014\nThe time within which notice of injury must be filed is not tolled because of the infancy of the employee, the only provision for the tolling of time being in favor of mental incompetents and minor dependents, sec. 49, ch. 120, Public Laws of 1929. In this case, whether the provision should be extended to include injured employees under 18 years of age is not presented, since more than twelve months expired after claimant became 18 years of age before claim was filed.\n3. Master and Servant \u00a7 53a\u2014\nA proceeding before the Industrial Commission for compensation is not a lawsuit in the strict sense, and many of the prerequisites of an action at law are not required. Thus, an infant employee may prosecute his claim directly without the appointment of a next friend or guardian.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Stevens, J., at September Term, 1940, of Alamaitce.\nAffirmed.\nClaim for compensation by injured employee under tbe \"Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act.\nTbe claimant, an infant over 18 years of age, an employee of tbe defendant, non-insurer, on 24 July, 1939, filed with tbe North Carolina Industrial Commission a report of an. injury alleged to bave been sustained by bim on 31 May, 1938, wbile working for tbe defendant. Tbe. defendant pleaded sec. 24 of cb. 120, Public Laws 1929, in bar of plaintiff\u2019s right to recover.\nIt appearing to tbe Industrial Commission and tbe Commission having found as a fact that claim for compensation was not filed by tbe plaintiff witbin one year after tbe alleged accident, it denied compensation. On appeal to tbe Superior Court tbe order of tbe Industrial Commission denying compensation for failure of tbe plaintiff to file bis claim witbin twelve months after tbe accident was affirmed. Tbe plaintiff excepted and appealed.\nLong, Long & Barrett for plaintiff, appellant.\nThos. G. Carter and June A. Grumpier for defendant, appellee." }, "file_name": "0737-01", "first_page_order": 805, "last_page_order": 806 }