Farmer v. Bemis Lumber Co.

Winborne, J. Careful consideration of the record on this appeal shows insufficient findings of fact for a determination of questions presented for decision. The controversy between the parties raises these factual questions with respect to which the Industrial Commission should make specific findings of fact, independent of conclusions of law: *161 (1) Did Bemis Lumber Company and A. B. Anderson enter into the alleged written contract referred to as Exhibit B? (2) If so, what are the facts with respect to the relationship of the contracting parties, and with regard to the performance of the contract ? (3) Did A. B. Anderson and McKenzie and Evans, partners, enter into the alleged written contract referred to as Exhibit A? (4) If so, what are the facts with respect to the relationship of the contracting parties, as between themselves and with Bemis Lumber Company, and further with regard to the performance of the contract as between them? (5) By whom was plaintiff actually employed, and for whom was he working at the time of his injury? Upon findings of fact by the Industrial Commission with reference to the first four questions, when supported by sufficient competent evidence, there will arise questions of law as to whether both A. B. Anderson and McKenzie and Evans, respectively, or either of them, were independent contractors. The legal conclusion thereon, with the facts found in reference to the fifth question, will present the question of law: Was plaintiff in the employment of the Bemis Lumber Company within the meaning of the North Carolina Workmen’s Compensation Act at the time of his injury ? When findings of fact are insufficient for proper determination of questions raised, the proceeding will be remanded to the Industrial Commission for further consideration in accordance with orderly practice. The record on this appeal leads us to say that as basis for an award in proceedings under the North Carolina Workmen’s Compensation Act, the findings of fact and the conclusions of law upon those facts should be specifically and separately stated to the end that courts in appellate capacity may properly review the questions of law involved. This practice should be followed even though the matter presented be a mixed question of law and of fact. Remanded.