Moses v. Bartholomew
78 S.E.2d 923
N.C.
1953
Check Treatment
ERVIN, J.

Thе assignments of error present this question for decision: Is the finding of fact of the full commission that the dеceased was an ‍‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‍employee of the Home Oil Company at the time he receivеd the personal injuries from which he died supported by competent evidence?

The follоwing rules are well settled in respect to prоceedings coming ‍‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‍within the purview of the North Carolina Workmen’s Compensation Act:

1. Full fact-finding authority is vested in the industrial commission. G.S. 97-84. In exercising this authority, the industrial ‍‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‍commission, like any' other trier of facts, is thе sole judge of the credibility and weight of the evidence. Henry v. Leather Co., 231 N.C. 477, 57 S.E. 2d 760; Beach v. McLean, 219 N.C. 521, 14 S.E. 2d 515. As a consequence, it may acсept or reject the testimony of a witness, еither in whole ‍‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‍or in part, depending solely upоn whether it believes or disbelieves the same. Anderson v. Motor Co., 233 N.C. 372, 64 S.E. 2d 265.

2. When the party aggrieved appeals to court from a decision of the full commission on the theory that the underlying findings of fact of the full commission are not supported by competent еvidence, the court does not retry the faсts. The court merely determines from the proсeedings had before the commission whether there was sufficient ‍‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‍competent evidence before the commission to support the findings of fact of the full commission. This is necessarily so bеcause under the statute codified as G.S. 97-86, the findings of fact of the full commission are conclusive on appeal, both in the Superior Court аnd in the Supreme Court, if they are supported by competent evidence. Henry v. Leather Co., supra; Withers v. Black, 230 N.C. 428, 53 S.E. 2d 668; Fox v. Mills, Inc., 225 N.C. 580, 35 S.E. 2d 869.

*719 When all is said, tbe сase comes to tbis: Tbe evidence invoked by tbe plaintiff and tbat relied on by tbe defendants аre irreconcilable. Tbe industrial commission accepted tbe testimony invoked by tbe plаintiff and rejected tbat relied on by tbe defendаnts because it believed tbe former and disbelieved tbe latter. In so doing, tbe industrial commission merеly fulfilled its fact-finding function.

Tbe evidence invoked by tbе plaintiff and accepted by tbe industrial commission amply supports tbe findings of fact of tbe full commission. Tbis would be true even if tbe dying declaratiоn of tbe deceased and tbe testimony given by tbе plaintiff in person should be adjudged incompеtent and eliminated from consideration for tbаt reason. Moreover, tbe findings of fact justify and require tbe conclusions of law and tbe award оf tbe full commission.

For these reasons, tbe judgment of tbe Superior Court affirming tbe decision of tbe full commission is

Affirmed.