Father v. Cramerton Mills Inc‪.‬

[225 NC Page 583] Both by statute and the uniform decisions of this Court it is declared that the findings of fact by the Industrial Commission, on a claim properly constituted under the Workmen's Compensation Act, are conclusive on appeal, both in the Superior Court and in this Court, when supported by competent evidence. Carlton v. Bernhardt-Seagle Co., 210 N.C. 655, 188 S.E., 777; Archie v. Lumber Co., 222 N.C. 477, 23 S.E.2d 834. An appeal from the Industrial Commission is permitted only on matters of law. While the Act does not set out with particularity the procedure on appeal, repeatedly it has been held by this Court that by analogy that prescribed for appeals from judgments of justices of the peace, when practical, should apply. Higdon v. Light Co., 207 N.C. 39, 175 S.E., 710; Summerell v. Sales Corp., 218 N.C. 451, 11 S.E.2d 304. But this refers only to the mechanics of appeal, as to notice and docketing; for the appeal from the Industrial Commission is only on matter of law and not de novo. It was said in Winslow v. Carolina Conference, 211 N.C. 571 (581), 191 S.E., 403: ""Statutory provisions with respect to appeals from judgments of justices of the peace to the Superior Court, where the trial must be de novo, are not controlling with respect to appeals from awards of the Industrial Commission to the Superior Court, where only errors of law appearing in the record may be considered."" It would seem therefore in case of appeals from the Industrial Commission to the Superior Court that the procedure should conform substantially to that in appeals from subordinate courts where by statute appeals are restricted to questions of law, Smith v. Texas Co., 200 N.C. 39, 156 S.E., 160; or to the consideration of exceptions to the report of a referee. Anderson v. McRae, 211 N.C. 197, 189 S.E., 639; Gurganus v. McLawhorn, 212 N.C. 397 (411), 193 S.E., 844. It follows that where upon an appeal from the Industrial Commission the exceptions point out specific assignments of error, the judgment in the Superior Court thereon properly should overrule or sustain respectively each of the exceptions on matters of law thus designated. We think this practice conducive to more orderly and accurate presentation of appeals brought forward under the Act. The appeal from the Industrial Commission in this case pointed out the particulars in which errors of law were assigned, and the judgment in the Superior Court merely decreed that the award be in all respects affirmed. Presumably the judge below considered each of the assignments of error and overruled them. In this view we do not hold that a remand is required in this case.