Texas Employers Ins. Ass'n v. Arnold

Decision Date15 April 1936
Docket NumberNo. 1959-6596.,1959-6596.
Citation92 S.W.2d 1019
PartiesTEXAS EMPLOYERS INS. ASS'N v. ARNOLD.
CourtTexas Supreme Court

This is a suit under the Workmen's Compensation Law (Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 8306 et seq.). The defendant in error, Francis A. Arnold, herein sometimes designated as the claimant, is the surviving adult son of the deceased employee, J. P. Arnold. By agreement of the parties in the trial court all fact questions were eliminated except the issue of whether the claimant was a beneficiary of the deceased employee. That issue was submitted to a jury and, upon an affirmative answer thereto, judgment was rendered in the claimant's favor, which judgment was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals. 62 S.W.(2d) 609.

Our Workmen's Compensation Law, article 8306, § 8a, provides that compensation shall be for the sole and exclusive benefit of the surviving husband, wife, minor children, parents, and stepmother of the deceased employee, without regard to the question of dependency and of dependent grandparents, children, brothers, and sisters. It further provides that the right of such beneficiary or beneficiaries to recover compensation for death shall be determined by the facts that exist at the date of the death of the employee. J. P. Arnold was not survived by a wife, minor child, parent, or stepmother. He was survived by brothers, sisters, adult children, and grandchildren; but none of them, except defendant in error, claims to have been in any sense dependent upon him at the time of his death. The sole question for decision is: Was the claimant a dependent of his father on the date of the latter's death, October 9, 1928? We shall make such statement of the facts as will throw light upon that one question.

The employee, J. P. Arnold, received gunshot wounds in Fort Worth, Tex., on October 8, 1928, from which he died on the following day. He had been living there for many years prior to his death. The claimant, Francis A. Arnold, was his son, aged 42 years, who resided in the state of Pennsylvania. The claimant's wife died in February, 1921, leaving him with two daughters, aged 8 and 10 years. In August of the same year his sister, Mrs. George R. Campbell, her husband, and one of their children lost their lives in a fire, leaving three children, aged 3 weeks, 5 years, and 8 years, respectively, to be cared for by him. A short time thereafter claimant sustained a serious injury to his knee, for which he received some compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Law of Pennsylvania. As a result of that injury he spent much time in different hospitals under the treatment of physicians and surgeons, and for several years was unable to support himself and family. Shortly after he sustained this injury his father went to Pennsylvania and arranged for the placing of his children and two of his sister's children in orphanages and for the adoption of his sister's other child by a Mr. and Mrs. Tobias. The evidence discloses that, for a few years after the death of claimant's wife, his father made generous contributions to him. Whether they were made under such circumstances as would constitute him a dependent of his father during that period we need not determine. Our question is whether the relation of dependency existed in 1928, particularly on October 9th of that year. The claimant's own testimony touching that issue was as follows:

"The first job I had after my accident was with the U. G. I. Company of Philadelphia, late in 1925. I worked with them for about seven months, earning about $28.00 a week. I then got a job as salesman for Fuller & Johnson of Madison, Wisconsin, for whom I worked about a year and a half, and my salary was $150.00 a month. I left them November 1st, 1927, and had no work until April 1st, 1928. During the five months that I was off, I spent most of the time in hospitals. April 1st, 1928, I went to work for Hudson Manufacturing Company of Philadelphia, as a salesman at a salary of $150.00 a month and expenses. I worked for them until October 8th, 1928, when I went to Texas and stayed there ten days and returned to Milton. On January 1st, 1928, I borrowed $3,000.00 on my home from Milton Trust and Safe Deposit Company and bought out a restaurant business from Orvis C. Yarrison. I took over a lease that Yarrison had for two years at $85.00 a month rent and also the water rent for the entire building, which amounted to about $15.00 a month. When I returned from Texas, I took over the active management of my restaurant.

"Q. While your father was helping between the years of 1921 and 1928, when he died, please state whether or not with his help you were able to meet your obligations and take care of your family. A. I was not able to meet my obligations and take care of my family with my father's help between the years of 1921 and 1928, when he died. I became heavily indebted by reason of numerous operations, hospital bills, doctor bills, and long period of forced unemployment.

"Q. Did your father do anything looking to your support during the period of time between 1921 and 1928? A. He helped me all that time between 1921 and 1928, sending me checks anywhere from $5.00 to $100.00 at a time. He also sent money direct to the Evangelical Orphanage for my...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Employers Mut. Cas. Co. v. Taylor
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • November 2, 1965
    ...of said child. The decision was based on the case of Texas Employers Ins. Ass'n. v. Arnold, (Comm.App., opinion adopted by Sup.Ct.1936), 127 Tex. 245, 92 S.W.2d 1019, in which the court 'We well recognize that the question of dependency is generally one of fact to be determined by the trier......
  • Westerhaus v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • September 11, 1995
    ...and lead to a definite conclusion, the court shall announce that conclusion as a matter of law. Texas Employers Ins. Ass'n v. Arnold, 127 Tex. 245, 250, 92 S.W.2d 1019, 1021 (1936). APPLICATION OF LAW TO Liberty argues that because "dependent" status at the time of the worker's death requir......
  • Sons v. Lane
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court
    • November 18, 1941
    ...contributions were being made.” Texas Employers Ins. Ass'n v. Arnold, Tex.Civ.App., 62 S.W.2d 609, 612, reversed on other grounds 127 Tex. 245, 92 S.W.2d 1019. “On issue of dependency of claimant evidence is admissible to show contributions toward support, use thereof by claimant, and remit......
  • Traders & General Ins. Co. v. Stanaland
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • April 12, 1947
    ...Warner, Tex. Com.App., 245 S.W. 664; Rodriguez v. Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n, Tex.Civ.App., 35 S.W.2d 510; Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n v. Arnold, 127 Tex. 245, 92 S.W.2d 1019, 1021. Over objections of defendant, evidence was admitted which related to the alleged needy and poor financial ci......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT