Tbe provisions of sec. 24, cb. 120, Public Laws 1929, constitute a condition precedent to tbe right to compensation, and is not a statute of limitations. Winslow v. Carolina Conference Assn., 211 N. C., 571, 191 S. E., 403. If an injured employee fails to file notice of bis claim witbin twelve months after tbe date be sustains an injury by accident arising out of and in tbe course of bis employment, be has no right to compensation under tbe express terms of tbe statute.

Tbe infancy of tbe plaintiff does not toll this provision of tbe statute. This has been tbe consistent bolding of tbe Industrial Commission and is, in our opinion, a correct interpretation of tbe law. 71 C. J., 1024, sec. 799; Okla. Pipe Line Co. v. Farrell, 160 Okla., 58, 15 P. (2d), 599; Decker v. Pouvailsmith Corp., 252 N. Y., 1, 168 N. E., 442.

A proceeding' before tbe Industrial Commission for compensation is not, strictly speaking, an action. Many of tbe prerequisites of a lawsuit are not required in a proceeding before tbe Commission. Thus it is that an infant may prosecute bis claim directly without tbe appointment of a next friend or guardian, as claimant is here undertaking to do.

Tbe limitations of time provided in tbe Workmen’s Compensation Act for tbe giving of notice or for making claim thereunder is tolled only in behalf of a person who is mentally incompetent or is a minor dependent, see. 49, cb. 120, Public Laws 1929; unless tbe tolling of time is extended to include injured employees under 18 years of age. As more than twelve months expired after claimant became 18 years of age before claim was filed, this question is not presented for decision.

Tbe judgment below is

Affirmed.