Peavler v. Francisco Mining Co.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Peavler v. Francisco Mining Co.

146 N.E. 911, 82 Ind. App. 525, 1925 Ind. App. LEXIS 245

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 10, 1925

DocketNo. 12,166.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 146 N.E. 911 (Peavler v. Francisco Mining Co.) 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

Peavler v. Francisco Mining Co., 146 N.E. 911, 82 Ind. App. 525, 1925 Ind. App. LEXIS 245 (Ind. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Remy, J.

Donald Peavler, twenty-three years of age and unmarried, while in the employment of appellee, lost his life as a result of an accident which arose out of and in the course of his employment. His parents and minor brothers and sisters who survived him filed with the Industrial Board an application for compensation as dependents of the decedent. From an order of the board denying compensation, this appeal is prosecuted. The only question for determination is whether or not under the evidence, the decedent’s parents and brothers and sisters were his dependents within the meaning of §38 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act (Acts 1919 p. 158, §8020ul Burns’ Supp. 1921). The question was one of fact for the Industrial Board. There is evidence' to sustain the finding. See, Hoosier Veneer Co. v. Stewart (1920), 76 Ind. App. 1, 129 N. E. 246; Rasin v. Miami Coal Co. (1922), 79 Ind. App. 123, 137 N. E. 529.

Affirmed.

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

Remy, J.

Donald Peavler, twenty-three years of age and unmarried, while in the employment of appellee, lost his life as a result of an accident which arose out of and in the course of his employment. His parents and minor brothers and sisters who survived him filed with the Industrial Board an application for compensation as dependents of the decedent. From an order of the board denying compensation, this appeal is prosecuted. The only question for determination is whether or not under the evidence, the decedent’s parents and brothers and sisters were his dependents within the meaning of §38 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act (Acts 1919 p. 158, §8020ul Burns’ Supp. 1921). The question was one of fact for the Industrial Board. There is evidence' to sustain the finding. See, Hoosier Veneer Co. v. Stewart (1920), 76 Ind. App. 1, 129 N. E. 246; Rasin v. Miami Coal Co. (1922), 79 Ind. App. 123, 137 N. E. 529.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

146 N.E. 911, 82 Ind. App. 525, 1925 Ind. App. LEXIS 245, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peavler-v-francisco-mining-co-indctapp-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack