¶1 Tbe liability of tbe State, as self-insurer, under tbe Workmen’s Compensation Act, for injuries arising out of and in tbe course of tbe employment of a duly 'enlisted National Guardsman was considered in Baker v. State, 200 N. C., 232, 156 S. E., 917.
¶2 But it is provided by section 40 of tbe Workmen’s Compensation Act that in case tbe deceased employee leaves no dependents, the employer shall pay tbe amount allowed thereunder “to tbe personal representative of tbe deceased.” When a statute names a person to receive funds, and authorizes him to sue therefor, no one but tbe person so designated has tbe right to litigate tbe matter. 20 R. C. L., 664.
¶3 It is further provided by O. S., 446 that “Every action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest,” etc. Casualty Co. v. Green, 200 N. C., 535, 157 S. E., 797; Chapman v. McLawhorn, 150 N. C., 166, 63 S. E., 721. Tbe proceeding, therefore, brought in tbe name of tbe deceased, and no one else, would seem to be nullius juris. S. v. Beasley 196 N. C., 797, 147 S. E., 301.
¶4*39 Nor is it permissible under C. S., 1414 for the personal representative of the deceased, hereafter to be appointed, to come in now and make himself a party to the proceeding- in the Supreme Court. Having acquired no jurisdiction of the matter as presently presented, there is nothing before the Court.
¶5 Proceedings dismissed.