Hoover v. Central Iowa Fuel Co.
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Lucas District Court. — D. M. Anderson, Judge. The tribunals below held that appellee Emma Hoover, the mother of a deceased employee, was entitled to compensation under the act; also, that intervener Esther May Hoover, a minor child of said employee, and less than 16 years old, was not entitled to recover as a dependent, because, while the deceased employee was her father, at the time of his death intervener was' a member of the family of her stepfather.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Lucas District Court. — D. M. Anderson, Judge. The tribunals below held that appellee Emma Hoover, the mother of a deceased employee, was entitled to compensation under the act; also, that intervener Esther May Hoover, a minor child of said employee, and less than 16 years old, was not entitled to recover as a dependent, because, while the deceased employee was her father, at the time of his death intervener was' a member of the family of her stepfather. Hence, intervener appeals.
1Opinion of the Court
Salinger,. J.
1. master and workmen’s Compensation Act: appeal. I. Appellant, on the 11th of June, 1907, appealed from the finding of the industrial commissioner to the district court. Her appeal was there dismissed. This was done on the theory that the then existing statute law authorized no appeal. We think this holding rests on a misapprehension, and may have been worked by following a suggestion made in the argument of ap-pellee, to the effect that the statute permitting such appeal was “enacted” since this cause of action arose. That may be so; but Chapter 270, Acts of the Thirty-seventh…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Davey v. Norwood-White Coal Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1923
- Day v. Town ClubSupreme Court of Iowa · 1950
- Reeves v. Northwestern Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1926
- Eckhart v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1935
- Robinson v. EavesSupreme Court of Iowa · 1926