Burke v. Armstrong

Indiana Court of Appeals

Burke v. Armstrong

12 N.E.2d 975, 104 Ind. App. 685, 1938 Ind. App. LEXIS 58

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 17, 1938

DocketNo. 16,120.

StatusPublished

This text of 12 N.E.2d 975 (Burke v. Armstrong) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Burke v. Armstrong, 12 N.E.2d 975, 104 Ind. App. 685, 1938 Ind. App. LEXIS 58 (Ind. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Kime, J.

The appellants and the appellee, Lois Burke, filed an application for compensation with the Industrial Board claiming that they were dependent upon Harry Burke, the husband of the appellee, Lois, and the son of the appellants.

The Industrial Board entered an award denying compensation to any of the applicants. From this award this appeal is perfected by the parents above assigning as error the statuory cause. The appellants contend that they were partially dependent upon their son.

The evidence is conflicting and among other things it shows that the appellants were the owners of a two hundred and twenty acre farm in Illinois which was worth at the time of the son’s death $140.00 per acre and that there was a mortgage on such farm for $22,-000.00 and that the deceased son, together with two of *686 his sisters, contributed $50.00 apiece each month to their parents to be used primarily for the payment of their interest and reduction of principal upon this mortgage. These appellants claim that this $50.00 contributed by the deceased son was reasonably necessary for them to have the necessities of life and to save their farm home from foreclosure. The statute defines dependency and it has been many times construed by this court.

See: In re Carroll (1917), 65 Ind. App. 146, 116 N. E. 844; In re Stewart (1920), 72 Ind. App. 463, 126 N. E. 42; Rasin v. Miami Coal Co. (1922), 79 Ind. App. 123, 137 N. E. 529; DeRaya v. Illinois Steel Co. (1926), 84 Ind. App. 201, 150 N. E. 792; Norris v. Daniels & McVaugh Constr. Co. (1932), 95 Ind. App. 125, 182 N. E. 585; Bennett v. City of Indianapolis (1934), 99 Ind. App. 202, 191 N. E. 180; Eviston v. Bradford (1935), 100 Ind. App. 616, 197 N. E. 724.

There is no necessity for repetition of what constitutes partial dependency. It is a question of fact and the board has found that partial dependency did not exist and there is evidence to support such finding.

The award of the Industrial Board is, therefore, affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Kime, J.

The appellants and the appellee, Lois Burke, filed an application for compensation with the Industrial Board claiming that they were dependent upon Harry Burke, the husband of the appellee, Lois, and the son of the appellants.

The Industrial Board entered an award denying compensation to any of the applicants. From this award this appeal is perfected by the parents above assigning as error the statuory cause. The appellants contend that they were partially dependent upon their son.

The evidence is conflicting and among other things it shows that the appellants were the owners of a two hundred and twenty acre farm in Illinois which was worth at the time of the son’s death $140.00 per acre and that there was a mortgage on such farm for $22,-000.00 and that the deceased son, together with two of *686 his sisters, contributed $50.00 apiece each month to their parents to be used primarily for the payment of their interest and reduction of principal upon this mortgage. These appellants claim that this $50.00 contributed by the deceased son was reasonably necessary for them to have the necessities of life and to save their farm home from foreclosure. The statute defines dependency and it has been many times construed by this court.

See: In re Carroll (1917), 65 Ind. App. 146, 116 N. E. 844; In re Stewart (1920), 72 Ind. App. 463, 126 N. E. 42; Rasin v. Miami Coal Co. (1922), 79 Ind. App. 123, 137 N. E. 529; DeRaya v. Illinois Steel Co. (1926), 84 Ind. App. 201, 150 N. E. 792; Norris v. Daniels & McVaugh Constr. Co. (1932), 95 Ind. App. 125, 182 N. E. 585; Bennett v. City of Indianapolis (1934), 99 Ind. App. 202, 191 N. E. 180; Eviston v. Bradford (1935), 100 Ind. App. 616, 197 N. E. 724.

There is no necessity for repetition of what constitutes partial dependency. It is a question of fact and the board has found that partial dependency did not exist and there is evidence to support such finding.

The award of the Industrial Board is, therefore, affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 N.E.2d 975, 104 Ind. App. 685, 1938 Ind. App. LEXIS 58, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burke-v-armstrong-indctapp-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack