Eller v. A. C. Lawrence Leather Co.

Stacy, C. J. This is one of the border-line eases. It is not easy of decision. Procedural considerations may tip the beam in favor of affirmance. The findings of the Industrial Commission, when supported by competent evidence, are conclusive on appeal. Buchanan v. Highway Com., 217 N. C., 173, 7 S. E. (2d), 382; Carlton v. Bernhardt-Seagle Co., 210 N. C., 655, 188 S. E., 77. Likewise, the presumption against error is invoked by the plaintiff as an aid to his position. Cole v. R. R., 211 N. C., 591, 191 S. E., 353; Gold v. Kiker, 218 N. C., 204, 10 S. E. (2d), 650. There is evidence to support the findings of the Commission. There is some pointing in the opposite direction. This conflict, however, belongs to the fact-finding body, and not to the appellate courts. Lassiter v. Tel. Co., 215 N. C., 227, 1 S. E. (2d), 542. Hemorrhagic pachymenin-gitis resulting in permanent disability and caused by a traumatic injury or blow on the head Avhich the employee sustained while about the employer’s business, may well be said to have arisen out of and in the course *25 of tbe employment and properly attributed to tbe injury by accident. Tbis makes it compensable under oitr statute. Tbe finding is that plaintiff sustained an injury by accident wbicb arose out of and in tbe course of bis employment, and that tbis traumatic injury naturally and proximately resulted in bis present disability. Smith v. Creamery Co., 217 N. C., 468, 8 S. E. (2d), 231. 'Tbe case is mueb stronger tban MacRae v. Unemployment Compensation Com., 217 N. C., 769, 9 S. E. (2d), 595, and Blassingame v. Asbestos Co., 217 N. C., 223, 7 S. E. (2d), 478, where awards of tbe Industrial Commission were upheld. In Dove v. Alpena Hide & Leather Co., 198 Mich., 132, 164 N. W., 253, tbe widow of a deceased employee was held to be entitled to compensation where her husband’s death was caused by inhaling infected dust arising from bides as they were piled in a poorly ventilated bide bouse, tbe Court saying: “Tbe accidental feature of tbe case is that by chance tbe septic germ or germs were taken up by bis respiratory organs and carried into bis system, an occurrence wbicb tbe testimony shows probably did happen, but wbicb was unusual in tbe work at which be was engaged.” In tbe instant case, tbe injury by accident is much more pronounced under tbe findings of tbe Commission. 'Viewing tbe record in its entirety, tbe conclusion is reached that tbe judgment of tbe Superior Court should be upheld. Affirmed.