Unemployment Compensation Commission v. Kirby, 212 N.C. 763 (1938)

Jan. 5, 1938 · Supreme Court of North Carolina

212 N.C. 763

UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION COMMISSION et al. v. O. T. KIRBY et al.

(Filed 5 January, 1938.)

Courts § 2b — Where statute creating state commission does not provide for appeal from its decisions, no appeal lies.

The Superior Court has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the determination by the Unemployment Compensation Commission of the liability of an employer for contributions under the act, eh. 1, Public Laws, Extra Session 1936, since the act does not authorize an appeal, but the Superior Court is without authority to dismiss the proceeding, but should only dismiss the appeal. Whether the Unemployment Compensation Commission is authorized to conduct hearing and to determine liability of employers for contributions, quwre.

Appeal by plaintiff from Bone, J., at October Term, 1937, of Pekson.

Proceeding before Unemployment Compensation Commission to determine liability of respondents for contributions under cb. 1, Public Laws, Extra Session 1936.

From finding and determination tbat respondents are subject to tbe provisions of tbe act (amounts not in dispute, if liability exists), tbe respondents appealed to tbe Superior Court of Person County.

His Honor beld tbat be was without jurisdiction to entertain tbe appeal (as no appeal in sucb cases is provided in tbe act, and tbe parties bave not agreed tbat tbe attempted appeal may be treated as return to certiorari) and dismissed tbe proceeding, taxing each side with one-balf tbe costs.

Prom tbis ruling tbe Unemployment Compensation Commission appeals, assigning error.

Adrian J. Newton, general counsel, and J. O. B. Bhringhaus, Jr., assistant counsel for plaintiff, appellant.

No counsel appearing for defendant.

Stacy, C. J.

Whether tbe Unemployment Compensation Commission is authorized to conduct bearings and to determine tbe liability of employers for contributions under cb. 1, Public Laws, Extra Session 1936, is not before us for decision. Conceding, without deciding, tbat sucb authority exists, tbe statute is silent upon tbe subject of any appeal from sucb determination. His Honor, therefore, was correct in bolding tbat be was without jurisdiction to entertain tbe appeal. His reasoning is sound, but be inadvertently went beyond bis authority in dismissing tbe proceeding. He should bave dismissed tbe appeal and left it there.

Tbe cases cited by appellant, Higdon v. Light Co., 207 N. C., 39, 175 S. E., 710, and S. v. Carroll, 194 N. C., 37, 138 S. E., 339, are inapplicable, as they deal with statutes providing for appeal without prescribing tbe procedure.. Here no appeal is authorized.

Modified and affirmed.