McNair Ex Rel. McNeil v. Ward
82 S.E.2d 85
N.C.
1954
Check Treatment
EeviN, J.

The evidence calls into play the presumption that the infant plaintiff and his employers have accepted the provisions of the North Carolina Workmen’s Compensation Act. G.S. 97-3; Pilley v. Cotton Mills, 201 N.C. 426, 160 S.E. 479. Consequently the presiding judge did not err in nonsuiting the action as to the employers (Tscheiller v. Weaving Co., 214 N.C. 449, 199 S.E. 623; Lee v. American Enka, 212 N.C. 455, 193 S.E. 809; Miller v. Roberts, 212 N.C. 126, 193 S.E. 286; Francis v. Wood Turning Co., 208 N.C. 517, 181 S.E. 628; McNeely v. Asbestos Co., 206 N.C. 568, 174 S.E. 509), or as to Lorenz, who was conducting their business for them. G.S. 97-9; G.S. 97-10; Warner v. Leder, 234 N.C. 727, 69 S.E. 2d 6. The validity of these conclusions is not impaired in any degree by the fact that the employers may have hired the infant plaintiff contrary to law. G.S. 97-2 (b); G.S. 97-10; Lineberry v. Mebane, 219 N.C. 257, 13 S.E. 2d 429.

Affirmed.