Sanders-Egbert Co. v. Getts

• Decision Date: 02 October 1923
• Docket Number: No. 11718.,11718.
• Citation: 141 N.E. 9,80 Ind.App. 328
• Parties: SANDERS-EGBERT CO. v. GETTS et al.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

80 Ind.App. 328

141 N.E. 9

SANDERS-EGBERT CO.

v.GETTS et al.

No. 11718.

Appellate Court of Indiana, Division No. 2.

Oct. 2, 1923.

Appeal from Industrial Board.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act (Laws 1915, c. 106), by Cora M. Getts and others, for death of Clifford F. Getts, her husband, opposed by the Sanders-Egbert Company, employer. From an order of the Industrial Board granting an award, employer appeals. Affirmed.

John A. Bloomingston, of Chicago, Ill., for appellant.

Redmond & Emerick, of Kendallville, for appellees.

NICHOLS, J.

Action by appellees against appellant before the Industrial Board for compensation because of the death of Clifford F. Getts, husband of appellee Cora M. Getts, and father of the other appellees.

[1] The controlling question at the hearing before the board was whether the deceased was an employee of appellant or of an independent contractor. This involves the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the award. Of the ten exhibits introduced in evidence, but one is set out. Of the ten witnesses examined, there is no pretense of setting out the evidence of but two, with but a bare reference to two others. Appellees have declined to supply the deficiency, but stand on their rights under the rules of the court. Under the repeated decisions of this court and of the Supreme Court, we are justified in holding that no question is presented. Rose v. City of Jeffersonville, 185 Ind. 577, 114 N. E. 85;Terre Haute, etc., Trac. v. Wolford, 187 Ind. 91, 118 N. E. 564;Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Retz, 71 Ind. App. 581, 125 N. E. 424;Lewis v. Michigan Stove Co., 54 Ind. App. 1, 102 N. E. 391;Miller v. Berne Hardware Co., 64 Ind. App. 473, 116 N. E. 54;Town of Bloomfield v. West et al., 68 Ind. App. 568, 121 N. E. 4;State ex rel. v. Stevens et al., 69 Ind. App. 137, 121 N. E. 371;Leedy v. Idle, 69 Ind. App. 105, 121 N. E. 323.

[2] We may say, however, that the meager statement of the evidence as found in appellant's brief is sufficient to sustain the award. Since the distribution of this case, appellant has filed a request for oral argument, but the request comes too late, and is therefore denied.

The award is affirmed.