Bloomington-Bedford Stone Co. v. Phillips
| Decision Date | 29 June 1917 |
| Docket Number | No. 9909.,9909. |
| Citation | 65 Ind.App. 189,116 N.E. 850 |
| Parties | BLOOMINGTON-BEDFORD STONE CO. v. PHILLIPS. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Appeal from Industrial Board.
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Dora Phillips for compensation for death of her son, Claude Phillips, opposed by the Bloomington-Bedford Stone Company, the employer. From an award of the Industrial Commission, the employer appeals. Affirmed.Jess B. Fields, of Bloomington, for appellant. Thomas J. Sare, of Bloomington, for appellee.
The appellee presented to the Industrial Board of Indiana her application for the allowance against appellant of her claim as a dependent of her deceased son, Claude Phillips. On the hearing before one member of the Board appellee was allowed $5.77 for 300 weeks and $100 burial expenses. On review by the full Board, after reviewing the evidence and hearing the argument of counsel, the Board found the facts to be:
“That on the 9th day of August, 1916, one Claude Phillips was in the employment of the defendant at an average weekly wage of $12; that on said date he received a personal injury by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, resulting in his death on said date; that the defendant had knowledge of the accident and injury resulting in the death of said Claude Phillips at the time of the occurrence; that the said Claude Phillips was 17 years of age at the time of his death and was living with the plaintiff, his mother, who was at said time a widow; that on March 18, 1916, by a judgment of the circuit court of Monroe county, Ind., the plaintiff was granted a divorce from her husband by which she was given the custody of said Claude Phillips, and three other minor children, then of the ages of 15, 12, and 8 years, respectively; that said judgment in said respect was in full force and effect on the 9th day of August, 1916; that the said Claude Phillips turned over and delivered to the plaintiff all of his earnings, which were placed into a common fund with the earnings and income of his mother; that the earnings and income of the mother and the earnings and income from the labor of the said Claude Phillips were all used by his mother, and were required and were necessary for her to support herself and the said Claude Phillips and three other minor dependent children of the ages of 15, 12, and 8 years; that the child 12 years of age was at the said time a helpless cripple; that from the common fund, made up of the wages of the said Claude Phillips and the earnings and the income of the plaintiff, the plaintiff furnished to the said Claude Phillips his home and board and money with which to purchase his clothing and other necessary incidentals and occasional sums for spending money, suitable to his station in life; that as a part of the judgment in the divorce case of the plaintiff against her husband, rendered on the 18th day of March, 1916, said husband was ordered to pay to the plaintiff, for the support of the said Claude and three other minor children, $12 per month; that from March 18, 1916, until October 1, 1916, the said husband paid to the plaintiff under said order only $18; that in October, 1916, said order was so modified as to reduce the amount to be so paid by said husband to the plaintiff to $6 per month.”
The assignment of errors is criticized by appellee, and it is said no question of law is duly presented, but only one of fact as to the sufficiency of the evidence, which is in the exclusive province of the Industrial Board. Appellant states that “the only question intended to be presented *** is that of the dependency of the mother on the minor son.” It is contended that the evidence does not warrant the ultimate facts found by the Board, and that the facts found do not warrant the conclusion that appellee was wholly dependent on the deceased within the meaning of the statute. We shall treat the assignment as sufficient to warrant consideration of the two questions suggested by the foregoing statement.
[1] Questions of fact determined by the Industrial Board are conclusive on appeal, where there is any evidence to support the findings of the Board. We have examined the evidence in this case, and cannot say as a matter of law that any of the material facts found by the Board are unsupported by the evidence. The general subject of dependency under the Workmen's Compensation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bethlehem-Fairfield Shipyard, Inc. v. Rosenthal
... ... 274, 37 A.2d 340, at page ... 343, adopted the rule as laid down in Bloomington-Bedford ... Stone Co. v. Phillips, 65 Ind.App. 189, 116 N.E. 850, ... "Total dependency exists where the ... ...
-
Ross v. Ross
...minor considerations or benefits." Britt v. Nashville Bridge Company, La.App.1937, 171 So. 493, 496; Bloomington-Bedford Stone Company v. Phillips, 1917, 65 Ind.App. 189, 116 N.E. 850, 852. In Winfrey v. Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Company, La.App.1944, 19 So.2d 727, 728, a dependent ......
-
Thomas v. Raleigh Gas Co.
... ... general rule as above stated.' Bloomington-Bedford ... Stone Co. v. Phillips, 65 Ind.App. 189, 116 N.E. 850, ... 852; see, also, Williams Case, 122 ... ...
-
Martin v. Beverage Capital
...general rule as above stated.'" (Emphasis added). Larkin, 183 Md. at 280, 37 A.2d at 343 (quoting Bloomington-Bedford Stone Company v. Phillips, 65 Ind.App. 189, 116 N.E. 850, 852 (1917)). See also Johnson v. Cole, 245 Md. 515, 520-21, 226 A.2d 268, 271 (1967)(stating that aid or benefits f......