Bachman v. Waterman
Indiana Court of Appeals
From the Industrial Board of Indiana. Proceedings for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act by Mary E. Waterman against Valentine Bachman and another. From an award for applicant, the defendants appeal.
1Opinion of the CourtCaldwell, J.
Appellants Valentine Bachman and his insurance carrier challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding of facts. There was evidence to the following effect: Bachman operated a flour mill in Indianapolis. On and for two years prior to December 26, 1916, Lee F. Waterman was in his employ as a salesman. The duties of his employment required him to visit grocery stores and various other places of business in Indianapolis and the surrounding territory, for the purpose of taking orders for flour and other mill products, and also for the purpose of making collections for products…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Kunze v. Detroit Shade Tree Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1916
- Beaudry v. WatkinsMichigan Supreme Court · 1916
- In re HarradenIndiana Court of Appeals · 1917
- Papinaw v. Grand Trunk Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1915
- City of Milwaukee v. AlthoffWisconsin Supreme Court · 1914
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Burroughs Adding Machine Co. v. DehnIndiana Court of Appeals · 1942
- Hansen v. Northwestern Fuel Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1919
- Cook's CaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1923
- Capital Paper Co. v. ConnerIndiana Court of Appeals · 1924
- Kokomo Steel & Wire Co. v. IrickIndiana Court of Appeals · 1923
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.