{ "id": 2219548, "name": "E. T. HART, Employee, v. THOMASVILLE MOTORS, INC., Employer, and THE TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier", "name_abbreviation": "Hart v. Thomasville Motors, Inc.", "decision_date": "1956-05-09", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "84", "last_page": "94", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "244 N.C. 84" } ], "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": "87 S.E. 2d 269", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "242 N.C. 223", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8612197 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/242/0223-01" ] }, { "cite": "36 S.E. 2d 730", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "226 N.C. 47", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8612007 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/226/0047-01" ] }, { "cite": "7 S.E. 2d 382", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "217 N.C. 173", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8601834 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/217/0173-01" ] }, { "cite": "193 S.E. 285", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "212 N.C. 243", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8606272 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/212/0243-01" ] }, { "cite": "169 S.E. 654", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "204 N.C. 701", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8624424 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/204/0701-01" ] }, { "cite": "163 S.E. 569", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "202 N.C. 500", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627293 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/202/0500-01" ] }, { "cite": "80 S.E. 2d 467", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "239 N.C. 547", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627772 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/239/0547-01" ] }, { "cite": "46 S.E. 2d 298", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "228 N.C. 479", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8626976 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/228/0479-01" ] }, { "cite": "29 S.E. 2d 137", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "224 N.C. 11", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8594820 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/224/0011-01" ] }, { "cite": "59 S.E. 2d 425", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "232 N.C. 162", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8596404 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/232/0162-01" ] }, { "cite": "12 A.L.R. 683", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "107 N.E. 60", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "219 Mass. 351", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mass.", "case_ids": [ 33555 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mass/219/0351-01" ] }, { "cite": "29 L. Ed. 249", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed.", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "54 S.E. 1009", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "142 N.C. 140", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8651754 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/142/0140-01" ] }, { "cite": "188 S.E. 815", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "211 N.C. 40", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8623247 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/211/0040-01" ] }, { "cite": "31 S.E. 265", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "123 N.C. 19", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8657012 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/123/0019-01" ] }, { "cite": "20 S.E. 2d 311", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "221 N.C. 362", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627851 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/221/0362-01" ] }, { "cite": "128 S.E. 20", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "189 N.C. 703", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8655003 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "708" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/189/0703-01" ] }, { "cite": "93 N.C. 205", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11273068 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "208" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/93/0205-01" ] }, { "cite": "193 S.E. 286", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "212 N.C. 126", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8601346 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/212/0126-01" ] }, { "cite": "79 S.E. 2d 748", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "239 N.C. 149", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8626101 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/239/0149-01" ] }, { "cite": "79 S.E. 2d 757", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "239 N.C. 180", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8626185 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/239/0180-01" ] }, { "cite": "199 S.E. 609", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "214 N.C. 437", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8631169 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/214/0437-01" ] }, { "cite": "111 N.E. 128", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "271 Ill. 312", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 4816270 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/271/0312-01" ] }, { "cite": "87 A.L.R. 245", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "288 U.S. 162", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 79751 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/288/0162-01" ] }, { "cite": "86 A.L.R. 79", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "136 Or. 694", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Or.", "case_ids": [ 2026666 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/or/136/0694-01" ] }, { "cite": "27 A.L.R. 2d 739", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "185 F. 2d 104", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 1231921 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/185/0104-01" ] }, { "cite": "97 A.L.R. 1081", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "74 F. 2d 334", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 964646 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/74/0334-01" ] }, { "cite": "147 S.E. 50", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "22 N.C. 297", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8690543 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/22/0297-01" ] }, { "cite": "172 S.E. 500", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "205 N.C. 801", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8631608 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/205/0801-01" ] }, { "cite": "173 S.E. 603", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "206 N.C. 206", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8629456 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/206/0206-01" ] }, { "cite": "5 S.E. 2d 305", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "216 N.C. 462", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8605526 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/216/0462-01" ] }, { "cite": "14 S.E. 2d 842", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "219 N.C. 766", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8626475 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/219/0766-01" ] }, { "cite": "69 S.E. 2d 603", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "235 N.C. 300", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8623444 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/235/0300-01" ] }, { "cite": "70 S.E. 2d 565", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "235 N.C. 532", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8625892 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/235/0532-01" ] }, { "cite": "5 S.E. 2d 305", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "216 N.C. 462", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8605526 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/216/0462-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 911, "char_count": 29621, "ocr_confidence": 0.56, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.263727260061182e-07, "percentile": 0.9750925633116062 }, "sha256": "68ea19f34e8f8d8f91d1d384a3e161b786ee48b68c8c8bc2a0658d9f0bad4e98", "simhash": "1:d079c2a3118b5604", "word_count": 4860 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:53:24.689887+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Winborne, J., joins in this opinion." ], "parties": [ "E. T. HART, Employee, v. THOMASVILLE MOTORS, INC., Employer, and THE TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Parker, J.\nThe plaintiff has challenged the jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Industrial Commission in making an award to him based upon prior agreements between him and the defendants, on the ground that he is not subject to the provisions of the North Carolina Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act, for the reason that at the time of his injury he was not an employee of Thomasville Motors, Inc.,' but was an independent contractor.\nThe defendants contend that the Industrial Commission had no power or authority to hear and determine this challenge, because, one, there was no showing of a change of condition as set forth in G.S. 97-47, and two, the plaintiff was bound by his prior agreements and receipt of compensation, and is estopped to attack the jurisdiction of the Commission.\nThe North Carolina Industrial Commission has a special or limited jurisdiction created by statute, and confined to its terms. Viewed as a court, it is one of limited jurisdiction, and it is a universal rule of law that parties cannot, by consent, give a court, as such, jurisdiction over subject matter of which it would otherwise not have jurisdiction. Jurisdiction in this sense cannot be obtained by consent of the parties, waiver, or estoppel. Hanson v. Yandle, 235 N.C. 532, 70 S.E. 2d 565; Anderson v. Atkinson, 235 N.C. 300, 69 S.E. 2d 603; Chadwick v. Dept. of Conservation and Development, 219 N.C. 766, 14 S.E. 2d 842; Reaves v. Mill Co., 216 N.C. 462, 5 S.E. 2d 305; Hollowell v. Dept. of Conservation and Development, 206 N.C. 206, 173 S.E. 603; Dependents of Thompson v. Funeral Home, 205 N.C. 801, 172 S.E. 500; Burroughs v. McNeill, 22 N.C. 297; Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. v. Thompson (Ga.), 147 S.E. 50; Woolsey v. Security Trust Co., 74 F. 2d 334, 97 A.L.R. 1081; Gavin v. Hudson & Manhattan R. Co., 185 F. 2d 104, 27 A.L.R. 2d 739; 14 Am. Jur., Courts, sec. 184; 19 Am. Jur., Estoppel, sec. 77.\nHowever, the doctrine has been announced that one who procures or gives consent to a decree, even though it is void as beyond the powers of the court to pronounce, is estopped to question its validity, at least where he has obtained a benefit from the act of the court. Dean v. Dean, 136 Or. 694, 300 P. 1027, 86 A.L.R. 79; 19 Am. Jur. Estoppel, sec. 77. The basis of this doctrine is that whether the court had jurisdiction either of the subject matter of the action or of the parties is not important, but that such practice will not be tolerated.\nWhile the defendants in their brief assert \u201cplaintiff was bound by his agreements and estopped to attack the jurisdiction upon the grounds asserted,\u201d they have favored us with neither reason, argument nor citation of authorities in support of their statement.\nThese were the facts in Reaves v. Mill Co., supra. An agreement for compensation for plaintiff\u2019s disability was entered into by plaintiff and both defendants, supposedly in pursuance of the provisions of the North Carolina Workmen's Compensation Act. This memorandum was examined and approved by the Industrial Commission, which made an award. Compensation was paid for about 38 weeks. The defendants then ceased payment, and challenged the jurisdiction of the Industrial Commission on the ground that at the time of his injury the plaintiff was not a resident of this State. The plaintiff then applied to the Commission for the enforcement of the award. This Court denied plaintiff\u2019s application holding that the Industrial Commission did not have jurisdiction over the original claim, and the parties could not confer jurisdiction by consent or agreement, because the Commission\u2019s jurisdiction over contracts for the settlement of claims is limited to those made under and within the purview of the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act. This Court in its opinion said: \u201cWe think it is clear that neither the agreement entered into by the plaintiff and the defendants nor the subsequent payments of the defendants thereupon amounted to a waiver of jurisdiction.\u201d\nA decision of the Industrial Commission is only conclusive when it is acting within its jurisdiction. Voehl v. Indemnity Ins. Co., 288 U.S. 162, 77 L. Ed. 676, 87 A.L.R. 245; TJphoff v. Individual Board, 271 Ill. 312, 111 N.E. 128, Ann. Cas. 1917-D1.\nThe jurisdiction of the Industrial Commission in relation to the subject matter over which it may exercise authority is limited by the North Carolina Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act, and this jurisdiction can be enlarged or extended only by the General Assembly, its creator. It is not necessary for us to decide whether under all circumstances a party to a proceeding before the Industrial Commission can, or cannot, be estopped to attack its jurisdiction over the subject matter, for the reason that under the facts of this case no such estoppel arises here. It is to be noted that this occurred during the hearing before the Hearing Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner said to defendants\u2019 counsel: \u201cMr. Edwards, you say you will not hold the plaintiff to the agreement?\u201d Mr. Edwards replied: \u201cNo, so far as getting a dismissal. If he wants to contend they are not bound by the Act, that is all right with us.\u201d At that time counsel for defendants made other statements of similar import.\nThe defendants contend that the Industrial Commission could not hear and determine plaintiff\u2019s challenge to its jurisdiction over the subject matter, because \u201cthe only basis for reopening a matter before the North Carolina Industrial Commission is upon the ground of change of condition,\u201d and cite in support of their statement, G.S. 97-47; Murray v. Knitting Co., 214 N.C. 437, 199 S.E. 609; Larson\u2019s Workmen\u2019s Compensation Law, Vol. 2, p. 330, sec. 81, et seq.\nThe authorities cited are not in point. G.S. 97-47 reads in part: \u201cUpon its own motion or upon the application of any party in interest on the grounds of a change in condition, the Industrial Commission may review any award, and on such review may make an award ending, diminishing, or increasing the compensation previously awarded . . .\u201d This statute applies where the Industrial Commission has jurisdiction. In Murray v. Knitting Co., supra, the Commission had jurisdiction.\nThe defendants further contend that the plaintiff is barred from challenging the jurisdiction of the Commission over the subject matter by reason of Rule XV of the Commission, the pertinent part of which reads as follows: \u201cNo party to any agreement for compensation approved by the Industrial Commission shall thereafter be heard to deny\nthe truth of the matters therein set forth unless it shall be made to appear to the satisfaction of the Commission that there was error due to fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence, mutual mistake, or other sufficient reason.\u201d Such a contention is untenable. The Commission cannot enlarge its jurisdiction, or prevent a challenge to its jurisdiction over the subject matter, by one of its rules. Its limited jurisdiction is fixed by the Act. \u25a0\nA challenge to jurisdiction may be made at any time. Baker v. Varser, 239 N.C. 180, 79 S.E. 2d 757; Spaugh v. Charlotte, 239 N.C. 149, 79 S.E. 2d 748; Anderson v. Atkinson, supra; Miller v. Roberts, 212 N.C. 126, 193 S.E. 286; Johnson v. Finch, 93 N.C. 205, 208.\nA judgment is void, when there is a want of jurisdiction by the court over the subject matter of the action, Hanson v. Yandle, supra, and Clark v. Homes, 189 N.C. 703, 708, 128 S.E. 20, and a void judgment may \u201cbe disregarded and treated as a nullity everywhere,\u201d Monroe v. Niven, 221 N.C. 362, 20 S.E. 2d 311.\nIn Stafford v. Gallops, 123 N.C. 19, 31 S.E. 265, the Court said: \u201cA void judgment is in legal effect no judgment. No rights are acquired or divested by it. It neither binds nor bars any one, and all proceedings founded upon it are worthless.\u201d\nThe plaintiff had a legal right to challenge the jurisdiction of the Industrial Commission over the subject matter, and, when such challenge was made, it was the duty of the Industrial Commission to hear and determine it.\nThe jurisdiction of a court does not relate to the rights of the parties as between each other, but to the power of the court to hear and adjudicate. The question of its existence precedes the question of the rights of the parties to avail themselves of its jurisdiction, if it exists. An universal principle as old as the law is that proceedings of a court without jurisdiction over the subject matter are a nullity and its judgment without effect either on the person or property. Monroe v. Niven, supra; Downing v. White, 211 N.C. 40, 188 S.E. 815; Clark v. Homes, supra; Card v. Finch, 142 N.C. 140, 54 S.E. 1009; 14 Am. Jur., Courts, sec. 167.\nA court without jurisdiction over the subject matter of a proceeding or case cannot enter a judgment in favor of either party: it can only dismiss the proceeding or case for want of jurisdiction. New Orleans & Bayou Sara Mail Co. v. Fernandez, 12 Wall. (U.S.) 130, 29 L. Ed. 249; Corbett v. Boston & M. R. Co., 219 Mass. 351, 107 N.E. 60, 12 A.L.R. 683.\nIn Mail Co. v. Fernandez, supra, the Court said: \u201cWhere the circuit court is without jurisdiction, it is in general irregular to make any order in the cause except to dismiss the suit; but that rule does not apply to the action of the court in setting aside such orders as had been improperly made before the want of jurisdiction was discovered.\u201d\nAn injured person is entitled to compensation under our Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act only if he is an employee of the party from whom compensation is claimed at the time of his injury. G.S. 97-2; Scott v. Lumber Co., 232 N.C. 162, 59 S.E. 2d 425.\nAn independent contractor is not a person included within the terms of the Act, and the Industrial Commission has no jurisdiction to apply the Act to a person who is not subject to its provisions. Iiayes v. Elon College, 224 N.C. 11, 29 S.E. 2d 137; Perley v. Paving Co., 228 N.C. 479, 46 S.E. 2d 298.\nThe Superior Court reviews the rulings and decisions of the Industrial Commission. This Court reviews the decisions of the Superior Court, when alleged errors are properly presented to us. Worsley v. Rendering Co., and Sugg v. Rendering Co., 239 N.C. 547, 80 S.E. 2d 467.\nThe Superior Court overruled all the defendants\u2019 exceptions to the findings of fact, conclusions of law and award of the Full Commission, except that it sustained their Exception VI to the award of the Full Commission which is addressed to the amendment made to the award of the Hearing Deputy as to the refunding of money by plaintiff to defendants. Under this exception the defendants said: \u201cThe North Carolina Industrial Commission has jurisdiction over the parties and cannot avoid or evade the exercise of its jurisdiction upon the conditions as set out in this part of its award. A conditional award of this nature is void and of no legal effect.\u201d The Superior Court expressly rejected this argument of defendants, and stated in its judgment, \u201cthis exception is granted on the ground that the Commission having no jurisdiction was without authority to include the challenged provision in its award.\u201d This ruling of the Superior Court was correct. The Superior Court Judge being of the opinion that the question raised by the appeal involved the jurisdiction of the Industrial Commission over the subject matter of the proceeding struck out the findings of fact of the Commission that the plaintiff was not an employee, but was an independent contractor, and made his own findings of fact and conclusions of law, yet in doing so he copied in his judgment verbatim the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Deputy Hearing Commissioner that the plaintiff was an independent contractor, and .not an employee of Thomasville Motors, Inc. at the time of his injury. This the Judge had the right and power to do. Aycock v. Cooper, 202 N.C. 500,163 S.E. 569; Francis v. Wood Turning Co., 204 N.C. 701, 169 S.E. 654; Miller v. Roberts, supra; Young v. Mica Co., 212 N.C. 243, 193 S.E. 285; Buchanan v. Highway Com., 217 N.C. 173, 7 S.E. 2d 382; Smith v. Paper Co., 226 N.C. 47, 36 S.E. 2d 730; Aylor v. Barnes, 242 N.C. 223, 87 S.E. 2d 269. The Judge, thereupon, made these conclusions of law: One, the employer-employee relationship did not exist between plaintiff and Thomasville Motors, Inc., and the Industrial Commission had no jurisdiction over plaintiff\u2019s claim, and it should be dismissed. Two, any agreements entered into by the parties should be set aside pursuant to motion of plaintiff. Third, the Industrial Commission does not have jurisdiction over the respective rights and liabilities of the parties concerning money already paid. The court, thereupon, dismissed the proceeding.\nThe findings of fact of the Superior Court Judge that the plaintiff was not an employee of Thomasville Motors, Inc., while performing the work when he was injured, but was an independent contractor, are supported by competent evidence. The defendants at the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner offered no evidence to the contrary. At the hearing defendants\u2019 counsel in respect to plaintiff\u2019s contention that he was not an employee at the time of his injury, but an independent contractor said: \u201cWe won\u2019t object, but we are not going to consent: in other words, we just don\u2019t take any position.\u201d\nHowever, the Superior Court was in error in overruling the defendants\u2019 exception to the Industrial Commission\u2019s setting aside the prior agreements entered into by the parties. The Superior Court was also in error in holding that any agreements entered into by the parties should be set aside, pursuant to motion of the plaintiff.\nThe Superior Court was right in its conclusions of law that the proceeding should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction in the Industrial Commission over the subject matter of the proceeding, and that the Industrial Commission had no jurisdiction over the respective rights of the parties concerning money already paid.\nWhen the Industrial Commission held that it had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the proceeding, all that it had the power to do was to set aside its approval of the agreements and its award for the payment of compensation and medical benefits, as improperly made before the want of jurisdiction was discovered, and to dismiss the proceeding. When the Superior Court made its own findings of fact and conclusions of law to the effect that the Industrial Commission had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the proceeding, thereby affirming the Industrial Commission on that question, it dismissed the proceeding. That left standing in the records of the Industrial Commission the Commission\u2019s approval of the agreements and its award for the payment of compensation and medical benefits. The Superior Court should have remanded the case to the Industrial Commission directing it to enter an order setting aside its approval of the agreements and its award for the payment of compensation and medical benefits, and dismissing the proceeding for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, on the ground that plaintiff was not an employee of Thomas-ville Motors, Inc., while performing the work when he was injured, but an independent contractor.\nThe sole question of fact involved here is whether in performing the work at which he was injured, plaintiff was an employee of Thomasville Motors, Inc., or an independent contractor. The Deputy Commissioner, the Full Commission and the Superior Court have concluded, upon competent evidence, .that the plaintiff, at the time he was injured, was doing work as an independent contractor, and that the Industrial Commission had no jurisdiction. There is no need to remand for the finding of any additional facts. The legal consequences that follow from such findings and conclusions are clear so far as the jurisdiction and power of the Industrial Commission is concerned.\nThis proceeding is remanded to the Superior Court so that it can remand it to the Industrial Commission with direction to enter an order setting aside its approval of the agreements and its award for the payment of compensation and medical benefits and dismissing the proceeding on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.\nError and remanded.", "type": "majority", "author": "Parker, J." }, { "text": "Bobbitt, J.,\nconcurring in result: The record contains findings that I.C. Form 21 and I.C. Form 26 were executed by the parties. However, these forms, executed or unexecuted, do not appear in the record. Upon approval thereof by the Commission, compensation payments were made by defendants to plaintiff in accordance therewith.\nPresumably, the executed forms embodied stipulations to the effect that the relationship subsisting between the parties was that of employee-employer-carrier. Apart from these executed forms, there were no stipulations that such relationships existed.\nPlaintiff, in challenging the jurisdiction of the Commission, moved that these agreements be set aside because executed by plaintiff \u201cthrough mistake and lack of knowledge and understanding,\u201d on the ground that in fact plaintiff was not an employee of Thomasville Motors, Inc. Confronted by this motion, defendants\u2019 counsel stated: \u201cNow, the defendants don\u2019t take any position one way or the other about this. We are just leaving it up to the Commissioner, because we don\u2019t contest it if he wants to set it aside. Doesn\u2019t matter to us one way or the other.\u201d Defendants\u2019 position was that plaintiff was not entitled to a modification of the award under G.S. 97-47 otherwise than \u201con the grounds of a change of condition.\u201d\nIn this setting, the inquiry proceeded; and, upon such inquiry, it appeared plainly from all the evidence that plaintiff was not an employee but an independent contractor. It is patent that the executed forms, if they contained stipulations that plaintiff was an employee, were executed by mistake. Therefore, I concur in the result.\nIn my view, we need go no further in the disposition of this appeal.\nWhether the Commission has jurisdiction depends solely on the authority conferred on it by statute. If the case is not within its statutory jurisdiction, jurisdiction cannot be conferred by any agreement of the litigants, express or implied. Reaves v. Mill Co., 216 N.C. 462, 5 S.E. 2d 305. There is no disagreement as to this well established proposition.\nIf, however, facts are stipulated, and the facts so stipulated, if true, bring a case within the statutory jurisdiction of the Commission, the Commission is authorized to exercise jurisdiction unless and until such stipulated facts are set aside. If, later in the proceeding, any party undertakes to challenge before the Commission the stipulated facts upon which the Commission\u2019s jurisdiction depends, Rule XV of the Commission, quoted in the Court\u2019s opinion, seems to be a just and reasonable rule. And when stipulated facts, upon which jurisdiction depends, are challenged in the Superior Court, it seems to me that a like rule should apply. Litigants should not be permitted to challenge their stipulations of fact without first showing substantial grounds why they should not be bound thereby. In my view, there is a marked distinction between conferring jurisdiction by agreement and making stipulations of fact which, if true, bring the proceeding within the statutory jurisdiction of the Commission.\nIt is noted that in Reaves v. Mill Co., supra, the original stipulations, on the basis of which compensation was paid, did not include a stipulation to the effect that plaintiff was a resident of North Carolina when he received the injury. In the subsequent hearing, lack of jurisdiction was predicated on the then admitted fact that plaintiff at the time of injury was a citizen and resident of South Carolina. Hence, there was no conflict between the facts stipulated and the determinative jurisdictional fact established by plaintiff\u2019s admission at the subsequent hearing.\nWinborne, J., joins in this opinion.", "type": "concurrence", "author": "Bobbitt, J.," } ], "attorneys": [ "W. H. Steed and Walser & Brinkley for Plaintiff, Appellee.", "Armistead W. Sapp for Thomasville Motors, Inc., Employer, and The Travelers Ins. Co., Carrier, Defendants, Appellants." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "E. T. HART, Employee, v. THOMASVILLE MOTORS, INC., Employer, and THE TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier.\n(Filed 9 May, 1956.)\n1. Master and Servant \u00a7 45\u2014\nThe jurisdiction of the Industrial Commission as a court is limited to that prescribed by statute, and its jurisdiction in this sense may not be enlarged by consent of the parties, waiver or estoppel, or by procedural rules of the Commission itself.\n2. Same\u2014\nWhere a party who has received compensation under the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act upon agreements of the parties, approved by the Commission, attacks the jurisdiction of the Commission at the first hearing before the Hearing Commissioner, and counsel for the employer and insurance carrier states thereat that defendants do not object to the attack upon the jurisdiction, the question of estoppel does not arise.\n3. Same: Master and Servant \u00a7 53c\u2014\nG.S. 97-47 does not apply where a party challenges the jurisdiction of the Industrial Commission after receiving compensation under agreement of the parties approved by the Commission, the statute being applicable only when the Industrial Commission has jurisdiction.\n4. Courts \u00a7 2: Judgments \u00a7 25\u2014\nA challenge to the jurisdiction may be made at any time, since a judgment entered without jurisdiction is a void judgment without legal effect and may be treated as a nullity at any time.\n5. Courts \u00a7 2\u2014\nWhere its want of jurisdiction is made to appear to a court, it cannot enter a judgment in favor of either party, but may only set aside such orders as may have been improperly entered before want of jurisdiction was discovered, and dismiss the proceeding.\n6. Master and Servant \u00a7\u00a7 39b, 45\u2014\nOnly employees are covered by the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act, and the Industrial Commission has no jurisdiction to apply the Act to an independent contractor.\n7. Master and Servant \u00a7 55d\u2014\nJurisdictional findings of the Industrial Commission are not conclusive upon appeal to the Superior Court, but the Superior Court may review the evidence and make its own findings upon questions of jurisdiction.\n8. Master and Servant \u00a7 45\u2014\nWhere a party who had been receiving compensation under agreements approved by the Industrial Commission thereafter attacks the jurisdiction of the Commission on the ground that he was an independent contractor and not an employee, the Commission upon its findings, supported by evidenee, that such party was an independent contractor should strike out its approval of the agreements and dismiss the action, but it has no jurisdiction to order such party to return amounts theretofore received under the agreements.\n9. Master and Servant \u00a7 55d \u2014 In dismissing proceeding for want of jurisdiction, court should not set aside agreements of parties.\nWhere a party who had been receiving compensation under agreements approved by the Industrial Commission thereafter attacks the jurisdiction of the Commission, and upon the appeal of defendants from order dismiss-the proceeding, .the Superior Court finds that claimant was an independent contractor and not an employee and that therefore the Industrial Commission had no jurisdiction, the Superior Court should remand the proceeding to the Commission with direction that it enter an order setting aside its approval of the agreements and dismiss the proceeding, but it is error for the Superior Court to hold that the agreements entered into by the parties should be set aside and in overruling exception to the action of the Commission in setting aside the agreements.\nBobbitt, J., concurring in result.\nWinborne, J., joins in concurring opinion.\nAppeal by defendants from Johnston, J., January Civil Term 1956 of Davidson.\nProceeding by plaintiff before the North Carolina Industrial Commission to set aside prior agreements concerning the payment of compensation to him, because his injury was not covered by the North Carolina Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act, for the reason that an employee-employer relationship did not exist between him and Thomas-ville Motors, Inc.\nThe plaintiff received an injury in October 1953, while working as a carpenter at the garage of the Thomasville Motors, Inc. By reason of an agreement entered into by plaintiff and defendants on I. C. Form 21, and approved by the Industrial Commission on 23 November 1953, and by reason of a further agreement entered into by plaintiff and defendants on I. C. Form 26, and approved by the Commission on 7 July 1954, the defendants have paid, and the plaintiff has received, compensation, as provided by the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act. In addition the defendants have paid medical bills, as a result of plaintiff\u2019s injuries, in amounts approved by the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act.\nIn March 1955 plaintiff moved before F. H. Shuford, II, a Deputy Commissioner of the North Carolina Industrial Commission, that the agreements as to the award be set aside by the Industrial Commission on the ground that the Industrial Commission had no jurisdiction, because an employee-employer relation did not exist between him and Thomasville Motors, Inc., at the time of his injury. The opinion of the Deputy Hearing Commissioner states: \u201cCounsel for the defendants stated that the defendants made no contentions regarding coverage under the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act, or regarding the employee-employer relationship.\u201d The plaintiff offered evidence before the Hearing Deputy Commissioner: the defendants none. Based upon competent evidence adduced at the hearing, the Deputy Hearing Commissioner found as a fact that the plaintiff was injured while performing work for Thomasville Motors, Inc., as an independent contractor: that the plaintiff was not an employee of Thomasville Motors, Inc., and the Industrial Commission had no jurisdiction over his claim. Whereupon, the plaintiff\u2019s claim was dismissed and removed from the hearing docket, and the prior agreements entered into by the parties were set aside.\nWhereupon, the defendants alleged error, and applied for a review by the Full Commission. Upon review the Full Commission adopted as its own the findings of fact of the Hearing Deputy Commissioner, and made an additional finding of fact that payments were made by defendants and accepted by plaintiff by reason of the agreements of November 1953 and July 1954 between the parties approved by the Commission. The Full Commission further amended the opinion and award of the Hearing Deputy Commissioner by adding an additional paragraph to the award as follows: \u201cPlaintiff shall refund to the defendants all moneys paid by them to plaintiff by way of compensation or medical bills, and unless and until this provision has been complied with the original agreements entered into by the parties and approved by the Industrial Commission shall remain in full force and effect.\u201d Except as amended and revised, the Full Commission adopted as its own the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Hearing Deputy Commissioner, and ordered the same affirmed.\nThe defendants filed eight exceptions and appealed to the Superior Court. In the Superior Court the defendants\u2019 exceptions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 were overruled. Defendants\u2019 exception 6 was to the additional paragraph added by the Full Commission to the award of the Deputy Hearing Commissioner as to the refund of moneys \u2014 quoted above. As to exception 6, the judgment of the Superior Court states: \u201cWith regard to defendants' Exception VI, the Court is of the opinion that this Exception should be granted on the ground that the portion of the award of the Full Commission, to which exception is taken, is void, and defendants\u2019 Exception VI is hereby granted. However, the argument of the defendants as stated in their Exception No. VI, that the North Carolina Industrial Commission has jurisdiction over the parties and cannot avoid or evade the exercise of its jurisdiction upon the conditions as set out in the portion of the award challenged by this Exception, is expressly rejected, and this exception is granted on the ground that the Commission, having no jurisdiction, was without authority to include the challenged provision in its award.\u201d The judge of the Superior Court, being of the opinion that the question raised by the appeal involved the jurisdiction of the Industrial Commission, and for that reason the findings of fact of the Full Commission were not conclusive upon appeal, though supported by competent evidence, and that the Court had the power and the duty to consider all the evidence in the record and to find therefrom whether the Industrial Commission had jurisdiction, without regard to the findings of fact of the Full Commission, struck out the findings of fact of the Full Commission as to jurisdiction. Whereupon, from competent evidence in the record, the Superior Court Judge found that the plaintiff was not an employee of Thomasville Motors, Inc., when injured, but was an independent contractor, that he was not subject to the North Carolina Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act, that the Industrial Commission had no jurisdiction over his claim, and that the prior agreements should be set aside. Based on these findings of fact, the judge made the following conclusions of law: one, the claim should be dismissed, because the Industrial Commission had no jurisdiction; two, any agreements entered into by the parties should be set aside upon motion of plaintiff; three, the Industrial Commission does not have jurisdiction over the respective rights and liabilities of the parties concerning money already paid. Whereupon, the judge dismissed the proceeding.\nThe defendants appeal, assigning error.\nW. H. Steed and Walser & Brinkley for Plaintiff, Appellee.\nArmistead W. Sapp for Thomasville Motors, Inc., Employer, and The Travelers Ins. Co., Carrier, Defendants, Appellants." }, "file_name": "0084-01", "first_page_order": 130, "last_page_order": 140 }