{
  "id": 8621158,
  "name": "MONTROSE BROWN (Administratrix), MRS. JAMES F. BROWN (Widow), LILLIE MAY BROWN and CHARLES BROWN (Minor Children) of JAMES F. BROWN, Deceased (Employee), v. L. H. BOTTOMS TRUCK LINES, INC. (Employer), and LUMBER MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY (Carrier)",
  "name_abbreviation": "Brown v. L. H. Bottoms Truck Lines, Inc.",
  "decision_date": "1946-12-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "65",
  "last_page": "67",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "227 N.C. 65"
    }
  ],
  "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": "225 N. C., 580",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8614204
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/225/0580-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "219 N. C., 468",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8624682
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/219/0468-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "225 N. C., 537",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8612728
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/225/0537-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "218 N. C., 386",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8619865
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/218/0386-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "225 N. C., 472",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8611258
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/225/0472-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "226 N. C., 156",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8614850
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/226/0156-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "226 N. C., 107",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8613807
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/226/0107-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 302,
    "char_count": 5797,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.486,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.2048611877359928e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7755907776862666
    },
    "sha256": "c245902195c56b1ead08ca2fc7e65492cfe61cbbd4116d617703187f1c2d5cf3",
    "simhash": "1:9509e20894ba2033",
    "word_count": 989
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:20:04.384970+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "MONTROSE BROWN (Administratrix), MRS. JAMES F. BROWN (Widow), LILLIE MAY BROWN and CHARLES BROWN (Minor Children) of JAMES F. BROWN, Deceased (Employee), v. L. H. BOTTOMS TRUCK LINES, INC. (Employer), and LUMBER MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY (Carrier)."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Devin, J.\nThe question for decision on the defendants\u2019 appeal in this case is that presented by their exception to the judgment below, and \u201cto the signing thereof.\u201d The only exceptions pointed out in appellants\u2019 assignments of errors are \u201cto the judgment of Judge Pless, findings of fact, and conclusions of law.\u201d\nLimiting our consideration to the exceptions thus brought forward on the appeal, it follows that many of the questions debated on the argument are not presented for decision. The exception to the judgment raises only the question whether the facts found are sufficient to support the judgment. Lee v. Adjustment Board, 226 N. C., 107, 37 S. E. (2d), 128. An exception to the signing of the judgment presents only the question whether error appears on the face of the record. King v. Rudd, 226 N. C., 156, 37 S. E. (2d), 116; Crissman v. Palmer, 225 N. C., 472, 35 S. E. (2d), 422; Query v. Ins. Co., 218 N. C., 386, 11 S. E. (2d), 139.\nIn Rader v. Coach Co., 225 N. C., 537, 35 S. E. (2d), 609, 610, the applicable principles were stated as follows: \u201cThe defendants excepted to the judgment in the court below. This is the only exception appearing in the record. Defendants\u2019 only assignment of error is in the following language: 'The defendants assign as error the approval and affirmation of the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the North Carolina Industrial Commission as will appear by judgment in the record.\u2019 The exception to the judgment presents the single question, whether the facts found and admitted are sufficient to support the judgment. It is insufficient to bring up for review the findings of fact or the evidence upon which they are based. ... On an appeal to this Court from the judgment of the Superior Court affirming an award of the Industrial Commission, this Court may consider and pass on only the contention of the appellant that there was error in matters of law at the hearing in the Superior Court. This contention must be presented to this Court by assignments of error based on exceptions to the specific rulings of the trial judge. Where there is a single assignment of error to several rulings of the trial court and one of them is correct, the assignment must fail. It must stand or fall as a whole.\u201d This statement of the rule is supported by many authorities cited by Jusiice Barnhill.\nIn Vestal v. Vending Machine Co., 219 N. C., 468, 14 S. E. (2d), 427, it was said: \u201cThis defendant excepts 'to the rulings of the court and findings of fact upon which the judgment was signed.\u2019 His assignment of error is 'that the court erred in its rulings and findings of fact.\u2019 This is a broadside exception arid assignment of error. It fails to point out or designate the particular finding of fact to which exception is taken. Nor is it sufficient to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings or any one of them.\u201d\nThe rule was reaffirmed in Fox v. Mills, Inc., 225 N. C., 580, 35 S. E. (2d), 869, from which we quote: \u201cIn conformity with the view expressed in the Rader case (225 N. C., 537), it must be held here that an exception to the judgment affirming an award by the Industrial Commission is insufficient to bring up for review the findings of fact or the competency or sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings and conclusions of the Industrial Commission.\u201d In that case the exception was \u201cto the foregoing judgment,\u201d and this Court said, \u201cThe effect of an exception to the judgment is only to challenge the correctness of the judgment, and presents the single question whether the facts found are sufficient to support the judgment.\u201d\nIn the Fox case, supra, approved appellate procedure in cases arising under tbe North Carolina Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act was pointed out.\nWe are of opinion and so bold that tbe defendants\u2019 exception to tbe ruling of tbe trial judge and to bis findings of fact and conclusions of law cannot be sustained, and that no error appears on tbe face of tbe record.\nTbe judgment accordingly is\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Devin, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Wm. E. Corner for plaintiffs, appellees.",
      "Charles W. Taylor and Ehringhaus & Ehringhaus for defendants, appellants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MONTROSE BROWN (Administratrix), MRS. JAMES F. BROWN (Widow), LILLIE MAY BROWN and CHARLES BROWN (Minor Children) of JAMES F. BROWN, Deceased (Employee), v. L. H. BOTTOMS TRUCK LINES, INC. (Employer), and LUMBER MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY (Carrier).\n(Filed 11 December, 1946.)\nMaster and Servant \u00a7 55d: Appeal and Error \u00a7 40a\u2014\nExceptions and assignments of error to the judgment, findings of fact, and conclusions of law of the Superior Court in affirming an award of the Industrial Commission present the sole question of whether the findings are sufficient to support the judgment and does not present the competency or sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings or any one of them.\nAppeal by defendants from Pless, J., at September Term, 1946, of GftriLEOKD.\nAffirmed.\nClaim for compensation under tbe Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act for the death of James F. Brown, alleged to have resulted from accidental injury while in the employment of defendant Truck Lines.\nThe award by the,Industrial Commission was in favor of claimants. The defendants noted exceptions, and appealed to the Superior Court.\nIn the Superior Court the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Industrial Commission were approved and affirmed, the court holding that deceased\u2019s death resulted from injuries by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment by the defendant Truck Lines. Appeal entries: \u201cTo the foregoing ruling, the defendants except and to the signing thereof again except and give notice of appeal to the Supreme Court.\u201d Assignments of error: \u201cThe only exceptions are to the judgment of Judge Pless, findings of fact, and conclusions of law.\u201d\nWm. E. Corner for plaintiffs, appellees.\nCharles W. Taylor and Ehringhaus & Ehringhaus for defendants, appellants."
  },
  "file_name": "0065-01",
  "first_page_order": 113,
  "last_page_order": 115
}