Case Name: R. M. PORTER, Employee, v. NOLAND COMPANY, INC., Employer, and INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1939-05-31
Citations: 215 N.C. 724
Docket Number: 
Parties: R. M. PORTER, Employee, v. NOLAND COMPANY, INC., Employer, and INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 215
Pages: 724–725

Head Matter:
R. M. PORTER, Employee, v. NOLAND COMPANY, INC., Employer, and INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier.
(Filed 31 May, 1939.)
1. Master and Servant § 40f—
Evidence that plaintiff, a traveling salesman, used his employer’s car for a week-end trip and was injured in a wreck in returning is held to support the finding of the Industrial Commission that the accident did not arise out of and in the course of the employment, notwithstanding that the injured employee, at the destination of the trip, met and conversed with a representative of the employer without appointment or direction of the employer, primarily in regard to a personal matter.
2. Master and Servant § 55d—
Findings of fact of the Industrial Commission supported by competent evidence are conclusive on the courts.
Appeal by plaintiff from Olive, Special Judge, at October Term, 1938, of Eorsyth.
Affirmed.
This was a proceeding under tbe North Carolina Workmen’s Compensation Act. The plaintiff, a traveling salesman with certain territory in North Carolina, had gone to Natural Bridge, Yirginia, for the weekend, using employer’s automobile. While there he conferred with a representative of Noland Company, without. appointment or direction from employer, and principally concerning a matter of personal interest to the plaintiff. On his return he sustained injury due to wrecking of his automobile. The Industrial Commission found that his injury did not arise out of and in the course of his employment and denied compensation. Upon appeal to the Superior Court this ruling was affirmed, and plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court.
H. H. LeaTce and Jno. 0. Wallace for plaintiff.
Hutchins & Parker for defendants.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
An examination of the record discloses that there was competent evidence to support the findings of the Industrial Commission. Therefore, in accord with the provisions of the act and the uniform decisions of this court, the findings of fact made by the Commission must be held conclusive on appeal and not subject to review. Hildebrand v. Furniture Co., 212 N. C., 100, 193 S. E., 294; Lockey v. Cohen, Goldman & Co., 213 N. C., 356, 196 S. E., 342; Davis v. Mecklenburg County, 214 N. C., 469; Lassiter v. Telephone Co., ante, 227.
Judgment affirmed.