Stone v. Francisco Mining Co.

140 N.E. 438, 80 Ind. App. 348, 1923 Ind. App. LEXIS 133
Indiana Court of Appeals·Decided June 29, 1923·No. No. 11,673·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Remy, J.

The only question involved in this appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding of the Industrial Board that the accident which resulted in the injury of appellant for which he claims compensation arose out of his employment. That was a question of fact for the Industrial Board. Miller v. Beil (1921), 75 Ind. App. 13, 129 N. E. 493; American Hominy Co. v. Davis (1920), 74 Ind. App. 622, 126 N. E. 703. See, also, Hopkins v. Michigan Sugar Co. (1914), 184 Mich. 87, 150 N. W. 325, L. R. A. 1916A 310; Fitzgerald v. Clark (1908), 2 K. B. 796. It appears from the record that there is competent evidence to sustain the finding.

Affirmed.

Dausman, J., dissents.

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

Stone v. Francisco Mining Co., 140 N.E. 438, 80 Ind. App. 348, 1923 Ind. App. LEXIS 133 (Ind. Ct. App. 1923).

140 N.E. 438 (Stone v. Francisco Mining Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Runion v. Indiana Glass Co.
16 N.E.2d 961 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1938)
Olsen v. Canter
176 N.E. 27 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1931)
Indiana Limestone Company v. Morris
171 N.E. 925 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1930)
Bush v. Smith
171 N.E. 926 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1930)
Self v. Shirkie Coal Co.
166 N.E. 613 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1929)