An iron worker lost his life by a fall from a building. He was living in a furnished apartment with his mother and step-father. According to the insurance carrier, the step-father earned seven dollars a day, the apartment cost them thirty-five dollars a month. and the mother boarded her son and did his washing and ironing in return for about seven dollars a week that he gave her. According to the Attorney-General, the mother's records showed that the son had given her four hundred and sixty-eight dollars during the years preceding the accident and had given his step-father two hundred and seven dollars. The Appellate Division affirmed an award to the mother unanimously and without opinion: Jackson v. McClintic-Marshall Co., Case No. 276255, Mar. 17, 1919; 190 App. Div. 924, Dec. 29, 1919.

A deckhand lost his life by drowning. The Commission declared his mother not dependent but awarded death benefit to his minor sister and three minor brothers. Upon appeal, the employer stated that the father of the family was getting one hundred and seventy dollars wages per month and seventy cents per day for his meals and had a savings bank account of two thousand dollars; also, that the mother had invested such money as she had received from the deceased beyond his keep and clothes in Liberty Bonds. The Attorney-General said that the son's contribution had gone into the family pot, that the family ought not to be penalized for the Liberty Bond investment and that the mother had been unable to buy as good clothes for her children since the loss of her son as before: McAllister v. Newtown Creek Towing Co., Death Case, No. 300399, Apr. 4, 1919;- App. Div. reversed for mari

time reasons, July 8, 1920.

A truck overhauler was accidentally crushed to death while at work in a repair shop. The Commission awarded death benefits to his mother and brother who lived with him in his father's family and to his grandfather and grandmother who lived in their own home. The deceased employee had paid ten dollars a week to his mother in cash and had usually given her two or three dollars a week in groceries. He had received his board and lodging in return. He had bought shoes and other things for his brother. The employer said the average expenditure of the family was seven dollars a week per member and that therefore, mother and brother

could not both have been dependent upon the deceased's contributions. Upon appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the award to the mother, since the appellant had not questioned her dependency, but reversed the award to the brother. Its opinion reveals the effect of the earnings of minor children upon dependency. Pertinent part of the opinion is as follows:

MULRANEY V. BROOKLYN RAPID TRANSIT Co., 190 App. Div. 774, March 3, 1920, in part.

WOODWARD, J.: Claimant's intestate was injured on May 17, 1919, producing death on that day, while at work for the Brooklyn Rapid Transit Company, a self-insurer. There is no question as to the liability of the employer for death benefits, the only matter being whether the persons to whom awards have been made were dependent upon the decedent at the time of the accident, for this is the date fixed by the statute. (Workmen's Compensation Law, § 16, as amended by Laws of 1916, chapter 622; Birmingham v. Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co., 180 App. Div. 48, 49, 50.) The decedent was twenty-two years of age, unmarried and living at home with his parents, and, at the time of the accident resulting in his death, was earning an average of $21.30 per week. The family consisted of decedent's father, who earned $23.85 per week; his sister, Anna, who earned $50 per month and was unmarried at eighteen years of age; his brother, Bart, seventeen years of age, who earned thirty to thirty-two dollars per week; a brother, Francis, eleven years of age, who earned nothing, and the mother. Of course, the earnings of Bart, aggregating thirty to thirty-two dollars per week, belonged in law to decedent's father, and this was equally true of the twelve dollars per week, approximately, earned by the sister, Anna. (Frey v. McLoughlin Bros, Inc., 187 App. Div. 824, 825.) It thus appears that at the time of the accident resulting in decedent's passing, there was an income in that family of five persons, exclusive of the decedent, of at least sixty-six dollars per week and this was all within the legal control of the father, who owed the primary duty of supporting his own family. The evidence is to the effect that the decedent paid ten dollars per week for his board, and this, of course, has nothing to do with the problem, for he is no longer boarded. In addition to this it is claimed that he gave to his mother two or three dollars' worth of groceries, etc., in each week, but there is nothing in the record to show that the mother was in any degree dependent upon these alleged gifts, and it has been said that "the mere fact that a father receives money from a son and expends it is not alone sufficient to establish dependency." (Birmingham v. Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co., 180 App. Div. 48, 51, and authorities there cited.) However, the appellant does not question the right of the mother to the award made in her behalf, but does challenge the right of the State Industrial Commission to make awards not alone to the brother, Francis, but to the grandfather and grandmother of the decedent.

Section 16, subdivision 4, of the Workmen's Compensation Law provides that where there is no surviving wife or dependent husband, and no children under the age of eighteen years, to take the full sixty-six and two-thirds per centum of the average wages, an award may be made "for the support

of grandchildren or brothers and sisters under the age of eighteen years, if dependent upon the deceased at the time of the accident," and "for the support of each parent, or grandparent, of the deceased if dependent upon him at the time of the accident." The Commission has made an award to the infant brother of the decedent, though there is not a line of evidence in the case that he was in any degree dependent upon the decedent for his support. On the contrary, it affirmatively appears that the father had command of approximately sixty-six dollars per week for the support of his family of five members, exclusive of the decedent. It seems entirely clear to us that the evidence excludes the idea of dependency upon the part of the infant brother, and that the award in this respect must be reversed. The statute clearly intended that the award to each person should be for the support of such person, and not for the general maintenance of the family, where the father was abundantly able to provide for all its members. (Matter of Walz v. Holbrook, Cabot & Rollins Corp., 170 App. Div. 6, 9; Birmingham v. Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co., supra.)

A chauffeur incurred fatal injuries while cranking an auto truck. The Commission awarded death benefits to his father. The only other members of the family group were a step-mother and an adult brother. The deceased employee had given his step-mother twenty-dollars a week toward the family up-keep and had sent home twenty-five dollars a month while he had been in the military service. The employer said that the father was in good health at the time of the accident and was earning seventy dollars per month. The Appellate Division affirmed the award unanimously and without opinion: Brown v. Uvalde Asphalt Paving Co., Death Case No. 202716, July 31, 1919; 191 App. Div. 930, Mar. 3, 1920.

A clothing cutter's family consisted of himself, his wife and four minor children, a boy and three girls. He earned as high as twenty-five dollars a week but his trade was seasonal. During the school vacation period the boy, who was fourteen, worked in a pickle factory and brought home all his earnings. He lost his life by an accident in the course of the work. The employer objected to compensation upon the ground that the deceased employee had been a school boy during the major portion of the year. The Commission awarded death benefits to the mother and the youngest two of the sisters: Gersonowitz v. American Pickle Co., 21 S. D. R. 304, 5 Bul. 26, Oct. 22, 1919.

3. OF MEMBERS OF PARENTS' HOUSEHOLD, DECEASED EMPLOYEE NOT HAVING LIVED THEREIN

A conductor at a New York steel plant was crushed to death between cars. The Commission awarded death benefits to his mother and his six minor brothers and sisters who lived on a Pennsylvania farm. The deceased employee was twenty years old. His father had died several months before the accident. He was sending about $35 per month to his mother. Public authorities were helping her out by a widow's pension of $15 per month. She had a small income from the farm. Upon appeal, the employer protested that the family was to get $66.69 per month in benefits, while the contribution of the deceased son had been but $35 per month, and asked that the benefits be limited to the mother's award. The Attorney-General called attention to the inadequacy of the mother's total income as against the cost of living and cited Walz v. Holbrook, Cabot & Rollins Corp. in support of the children's awards. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the awards, with opinion as follows:

HESS V. DONNER STEEL CO., 191 APP. Div. 667, MAY 5, 1920.

KILEY, J.: On the 6th day of November, 1918, at 10 A. M. of that day, Martin C. Hess received injuries from which he died within a short time. At the time he was working for the Donner Steel Company, Incorporated, at their plant located at North Tonawanda, New York. This corporation manufactured steel products; the decedent had worked for it one and one-half years; was about twenty years of age and unmarried. His occupation was such as come under the definition of "hazardous in the Workmen's Compensation Law. Jacob Hess, the father of Martin, died August 2, 1918. The claimants are mother and brothers and sisters of the deceased. At the time, and for some years previous, the family, except Martin, had lived on a cheap, hilly farm over the line in the State of Pennsylvania. The evidence abundantly sustains the contention of the claimants, that Martin contributed to their support, and that they were dependent upon him at the time of the accident. The State Industrial Commission so found, and awarded to the mother, Florence M. Hess, $5.77 weekly, and to Mary C., John L., Wallace, Florence, Grace and Daisy, dependent brothers and sisters, each $1.66% weekly a total of $15.39. The average weekly wage of Martin was $24.92. Appellants contend that because this amounts to more than the sums contributed to these dependents by the son — - he contributed $35 or $40 a month — the award ought not be affirmed. Under Section 16 of the Workmen's Compensation Law, dependency shall be determined as of the time of the accident. (Birmingham v. Westinghouse Electric Mfg. Co., 180 App. Div. 43.) The commission has so found and the finding is sustained by the evidence. Section 16, subdivision 4, also provides for this form of the award and for the

amounts awarded. (Walz v. Holbrook, Cabot & Rollins Corp., 170 App. Div. 6). The record on appeal in Chabot v. Terry Bros. & Co. (184 App. Div. 917) shows that the amount contributed before the accident and death was $7.50 a week and the award was $9.61 a week.

The award should be affirmed. Award unanimously atfirmed.

4. OF GRANDPARENTS LIVING APART

A rope caught and fatally injured an employee in a repair shop. In addition to awards to his mother and brother with whom he had lived, the Commission gave death benefits to his grandfather and grandmother who owned and lived in their own separate home. They were old and unable to work. They had an income of eighteen dollars a month from rental of part of their house but carried a mortgage of fifteen hundred dollars. The grandmother testified that the deceased grandson had given them an average of three dollars a week in cash, groceries and all. Upon appeal, the Appellate Division, though expressing serious doubts as to the dependency of the grandmother, affirmed the award to her but reversed the award to the grandfather. Pertinent part of its opinion is as follows:

MULRANEY V. BROOKLYN RAPID TRANSIT Co., 190 App. Div. 774, March 3, 1920, in part.

The grandparents of the decedent appear to have lived by themselves in a two-family house, a portion of which they rented. The house was valued at $3,600, and was mortgaged for $1,500. They are very old and earn no income. There is some vague testimony to the effect that the decedent made presents to these old people of tobacco, etc., which is estimated at from $3 to $3.50 per week, but tobacco is hardly a necessity, and there is no evidence in the case, so far as our attention is called to the record that the grandfather is not abundantly able to care for his aged wife. The grandmother testified that she owned the house, and that she had to pay interest, taxes, etc., and that she had no money other than such as she had received from her son and the decedent, but she does not tell us anything about her husband's financial situation; so far as the record shows he may be possessed of ample means. The grandmother testified that prior to the death of the deceased "I was trying to put a little away to help to pay the mortgage and to pay the interest and to pay the taxes, to pay the fire insurance, renewal mortgage, and I strived to put away ten dollars a month out of what I got on the house," and that she could not do that; that she "done it very well for a while with poor Joe, because he helped me out good, but now I couldn't." This and like testimony appears in the record of conditions subsequent to the accident, but it is not the purpose of the Workmen's Compensation Law to provide money for the payment of the debts of alleged dependents (Frey v. McLoughlin Bros., Inc., 187 App. Div. 824, 826), but for the support of the