Goshen Veneer Co. v. Bunton

Indiana Court of Appeals

Goshen Veneer Co. v. Bunton

140 N.E. 79, 80 Ind. App. 701, 1923 Ind. App. LEXIS 202

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 21, 1923

DocketNo. 11,664

StatusPublished

This text of 140 N.E. 79 (Goshen Veneer Co. v. Bunton) 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

Goshen Veneer Co. v. Bunton, 140 N.E. 79, 80 Ind. App. 701, 1923 Ind. App. LEXIS 202 (Ind. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

McMahan, C. J.

Proceeding by Jerry Bunton, hereafter designated appellee, against appellant, under the Workmen’s Compensation. Act (Acts 1915 p. 392, §8020l et seq. Burns’ Supp. 1921) to obtain compensation for the loss of an eye. Appellant, contending that appellee was not in its employ but that he was an employe of William Carr, filed a petition asking that Carr be made a defendant. Carr was made a defendant after which there was a hearing which resulted in a finding by the full Industrial Board that appellee was an employe of appellant and not of Carr, together with the other facts necessary to sustain an award against appellant for 150 weeks compensation.

The facts in this case are quite like the facts in McDowell v. Duer (1922), 78 Ind. App. 440, 133 N. E. 839, and on the authority of that case the award is affirmed.

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

McMahan, C. J.

Proceeding by Jerry Bunton, hereafter designated appellee, against appellant, under the Workmen’s Compensation. Act (Acts 1915 p. 392, §8020l et seq. Burns’ Supp. 1921) to obtain compensation for the loss of an eye. Appellant, contending that appellee was not in its employ but that he was an employe of William Carr, filed a petition asking that Carr be made a defendant. Carr was made a defendant after which there was a hearing which resulted in a finding by the full Industrial Board that appellee was an employe of appellant and not of Carr, together with the other facts necessary to sustain an award against appellant for 150 weeks compensation.

The facts in this case are quite like the facts in McDowell v. Duer (1922), 78 Ind. App. 440, 133 N. E. 839, and on the authority of that case the award is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 N.E. 79, 80 Ind. App. 701, 1923 Ind. App. LEXIS 202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goshen-veneer-co-v-bunton-indctapp-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack