Borders v. Cline
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1DissentDevin, J.
I am constrained to the view that the comprehensive language of the Workmen’s Compensation Act and the statutory definitions of the terms “employment,” “employer,” and “employee” are sufficiently broad to embrace the service or employment of the sheriff’s deputies. Every contract of service, written or implied, is presumed to have been made subject to the provisions of the act, unless therein exempted. C. S., 8181 (m).
This view is strengthened by the specific reference in the act to deputies sheriff as follows: "Provided, however, that any sheriff may exempt himself, and any and all deputies…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- State v. . HumphriesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
- Claremont Country Club v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
- Indian Hill Club v. Industrial CommissionIllinois Supreme Court · 1923
- Trust Co. v. . Hood, Comr. of BanksSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1934
- Bynum v. KnightonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1911