The correctness of the award is challenged on the ground that the evidence does not support the finding that claimant’s injury arose out of and in the course of his employment. G. S. N. C. 97-2 (f); Lewter v. Abercrombie Enterprises, Inc., ante, 399, 82 S.E. 2d 410; Matthews v. Carolina Standard Corp., 232 N.C. 229, 60 S.E. 2d 93.
We have held in the following cases where an employee, while about his work, suffers an injury in the ordinary course of employment, the cause of which is not explained, but which is a natural and probable result of a risk thereof, and the Commission finds from the evidence that the injury arose out of the employment, an award will be sustained. Morgan v. *564 Cloth Mills, 207 N.C. 317, 177 S.E. 165; Maley v. Furniture Co., 214 N.C. 589, 200 S.E. 438; Robbins v. Hosiery Mills, 220 N.C. 246, 17 S.E. 2d 20; DeVine v. Steel Co., 227 N.C. 684, 44 S.E. 2d 77. “There is surprisingly little contra authority.” Larson’s Workmen’s Compensation Law, Vol. 1, p. 100.
In the Morgan case the indications were he slipped on some ice, or stumbled over some lumber or a hand truck on an unlighted platform, and fell to the frozen ground. In the Maley case claimant was seen working in front of a running saw with a fresh bleeding place on his arm. In the Robbins case claimant, while reaching up in a rack in the work she was doing, fell. In the DeVine case the claimant was required to stand on a platform to lower a flag from a flag pole each day. He was found unconscious at the bottom of the flag pole with ropes of the flag pole tangled with his body.
It is settled law that “where an injury cannot fairly be traced to the employment as a contributing proximate cause ... it does not arise out of the employment.” Bryan v. T. A. Loving Co., 222 N.C. 724, 24 S.E. 2d 751; Lockey v. Cohen, Goldman & Co., 213 N.C. 356, 196 S.E. 342; Walker v. Wilkins, Inc., 212 N.C. 627, 194 S.E. 89.
If claimant’s injury did not arise out of and in the course of his employment, it is not compensable. Lewter v. Abercrombie Enterprises, Inc., supra; Berry v. Furniture Co., 232 N.C. 303, 60 S.E. 2d 97. Both are necessary to justify an award. Bell v. Dewey Brothers, Inc., 236 N.C. 280, 72 S.E. 2d 680; Withers v. Black, 230 N.C. 428, 53 S.E. 2d 668.
We said in Bell v. Dewey Brothers, Inc., supra: “’Arising out of’ means arising out of the work the employee is to do, or out of the service he is to perform. The risk must be incidental to the employment. Hunt v. State, 201 N.C. 707, 161 S.E. 203; Berry v. Furniture Co., 232 N.C. 303, 60 S.E. 2d 97.”
Whether an accident arose out of the employment is a mixed question of law and fact. Matthews v. Carolina Standard Corp., supra; Plemmons v. White’s Service, Inc., 213 N.C. 148, 195 S.E. 370.
The Commission found that claimant “walked about 25 steps away from the chute and the crusher, and sat down on a wall . . .; that he sat down on the wall to rest a moment, and to see if the machinery started off all right, intending thereafter, when his services to the company had ended, and there was a lull which would not interfere with the work, to speak to John Moody about the $10.00; that John Moody went to the switchboard and started the machinery, and plaintiff was watching the belts to see that they were running . . .; that the machinery started and at that moment plaintiff experienced a sensation of ’turning blind’ which is his last remembrance . . .” The Commission further found that at the time claimant “fell from the wall, he was still acting in his capacity *565as foreman, . . ., was rendering services to bis employer in tbat capacity. . . .”
In our opinion, tbe evidence, most favorably considered for claimant, does not support sucb findings. Claimant returned to tbe plant twice on tbe evening be was injured, on personal business, to collect from Moody $10.00 Moody owed bim. Claimant testified: “¥e started working and after we got it unstopped, I went over to a sbed and sat down on a wall over there. ITp until tbat time, wben I went over and sat down, I bad not said anything to Moody about tbe money be owed me. We were busy fixing to start back up, and I hadn’t mentioned it. I was waiting until be bad a lull to speak to him about tbe money, waiting until be bad a chance. You can feed tbe crusher a little faster than it will grind. I was waiting until we got it running, and be could stop and I could see bim about it. Well, I sat down there. I was going to see bim about tbe money, yes, but I wanted bim to get everything running before I started talking to bim. I wasn’t g'oing to interfere on company time. As soon as be got over bis activity there and bad a lull and it wouldn’t interfere with bis work, I was going to ask bim about tbe money.” Claimant further testified: “I was watching tbe belts to see tbat tbe belts was running. See, each belt was starting and I was watching them, and I come out and in a minute or two, not over two minutes I wouldn’t think, and be got up on tbe pay-loader there and started to feed tbe thing after everything bad started up and that’s tbe last I knowed. It couldn’t have been over two or three minutes between tbe time tbat I got down off tbe chute until I fell off tbe wall.”
Moody, plaintiff’s witness, testified after tbe chute was uncboked, be and claimant stood around a few minutes talking, and saw tbe material was coming through all right. Claimant then walked to tbe wall, and sat down. Moody bad been at work half an hour wben be beard claimant yell; be turned, and saw claimant going over tbe wall backward. During this 30 minutes claimant did no work whatsoever.
Tbe other witnesses sbed no light on these facts. Incidentally, tbe evidence shows claimant worked at tbe chute around 20 minutes or a little over, according to bis testimony; 20 to 30 minutes, according to Moody, though tbe Commission found claimant worked 30 to 40 minutes.
It is true tbe accident took place on defendant’s premises. It is equally true claimant returned to tbe premises after bis day’s work was over on bis personal business to collect $10.00 John Moody owed bim; tbat tbe chute was uncboked and tbe machinery was working; and tbat claimant was sitting on tbe wall so tbat, in bis words, as soon as John Moody “got over bis activity there and bad a lull, and it wouldn’t interfere with bis work, I was going to ask bim about tbe money.” Whether be bad been sitting on tbe wall 2 or 3 minutes or 30 minutes before bis fall is imma*566terial. It would seem that the injury could not be held an accident resulting from a risk incident to his employment. There appears no causal relationship between his employment as foreman and the injury he received. Bell v. Dewey Brothers, Inc., supra; Matthews v. Carolina Standard Corp., supra; Beavers v. Power Co., 205 N.C. 34, 169 S.E. 825.
It can hardly be said that claimant’s injury arose “out of and in the course of his employment,” both of which are necessary to justify an award under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Beavers v. Power Co., supra; Hunt v. State, supra.
In the light of the undisputed evidence, we are constrained to hold that claimant was not injured by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.
Reversed.