Case Name: FLORENCE HUDSON, Mother and JOE HUDSON, Father, Next-of-Kin of STANLEY HUDSON, Deceased Employee; Plaintiffs, v. WHITFORD MOTOR COMPANY, Employer and GREAT AMERICAN INDEMNITY COMPANY, Carrier; Defendants
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1958-09-17
Citations: 248 N.C. 720
Docket Number: 
Parties: FLORENCE HUDSON, Mother and JOE HUDSON, Father, Next-of-Kin of STANLEY HUDSON, Deceased Employee; Plaintiffs, v. WHITFORD MOTOR COMPANY, Employer and GREAT AMERICAN INDEMNITY COMPANY, Carrier; Defendants.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 248
Pages: 720–721

Head Matter:
FLORENCE HUDSON, Mother and JOE HUDSON, Father, Next-of-Kin of STANLEY HUDSON, Deceased Employee; Plaintiffs, v. WHITFORD MOTOR COMPANY, Employer and GREAT AMERICAN INDEMNITY COMPANY, Carrier; Defendants.
(Filed 17 September, 1958.)
Appeal by defendants from Parker, J., May Civil Term, 1958, of CRAVEN.
Defendants’ appeal is from a judgment affirming the Industrial Commission’s award of compensation in a proceeding under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, G.S. Ch. 97, Art. 1.
Findings of fact and conclusions of law, made initially by the hearing Commissioner, together with award based thereon, were adopted, upon defendants’ appeal, by the full Commission; and, upon defendants’ further appeal, the court entered judgment affirming the award. Upon this appeal from said judgment, defendants assign as error the overruling of their exceptions to designated findings of fact and conclusions of law and the affirmance of the award.
Wilkinson Ward for plaintiffs, appellees.
I. Weisner Farmer and White & Aycock by Harvey W. Marcus for defendants, appellants.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The only question presented by defendants' assignments of error is whether there is any competent evidence to support the full Commission's findings of fact and conclusions of law to the effect that Stanley Hudson's death on January 11, 1956, was by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment by Whitford Motor Company. After careful study of the record, we conclude that this question must be answered in the affirmative. Hence, the judgment must be and is affirmed. Champion v. Tractor Co., 246 N.C. 691, 99 S.E. 2d 917; Watson v. Clay Co., 242 N.C. 763, 89 S.E. 2d 465, and cases cited.
Affirmed.