in re Bentley

• Decision Date: 27 February 1914
• Citation: in re Bentley, 104 N.E. 432, 217 Mass. 79 (Mass. 1914)
• Parties: In re BENTLEY; In re BURNHAM BROS.; In re MASSACHUSETTS EMPLOYEES INS. ASS'N.
• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

217 Mass. 79

104 N.E. 432

In re BENTLEY; In re BURNHAM BROS.; In re MASSACHUSETTS EMPLOYEES INS. ASS'N.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

February 27, 1914

COUNSEL

Charles J. Martell, of Boston, for appellants.

Currier Rollins, Young & Pillsbury, of Boston (Samuel H. Pillsbury of Boston, of counsel), for appellee.

OPINION

SHELDON J.

This case must be decided upon the facts found by the Industrial Accident Board, in its review of the report of the committee of arbitration. St. 1911, c. 751, pt. 3, §§ 5, 10, 16; St 1912, c. 571, §§ 12-15. The Industrial Accident Board adopted the findings of the committee of arbitration and found some further facts. Its findings were made after a hearing of the parties on the statements of counsel and the evidence before the full board. The findings of fact thus made are not open to revision as such. Donovan's Case, 104 N.E. 431. Nor, as the evidence is not reported, can it be contended that as matter of law they were not warranted.

The wife and child of Bentley were both living apart from him at the time of his death. Accordingly neither of them was 'conclusively presumed' to have been wholly dependent upon him for support. The question must be determined upon evidence of the fact as it existed at the time of the injury. St. 1911, c. 751, pt. 2, § 7. The Industrial Board has found that the wife was not dependent upon Bentley for support, but that the child was partially so. On these findings,...