866 H. N. RODGERS & SONS CO. V. NELSON. [209 H. N. RODGERS & SONS COMPANY V. NELSON. 4-7793 192 S. W. 2d 972 Opinion delivered March 4, 1946. Rehearing denied April 1, 1946. 1. WORK MEN'S COMPENSATION LAW—FACTUAL MATTERS. — One is dependent, within the meaning of Act 319, approved March 15, 1939, if he or she relies partially upon contributions of a person whose aid contributes a material element in the claimant's support. 2. WORK MEN'S COMPENSATION LAW.—The fact that a wife was partially supported by her husband did not, standing alone in the circumstances of the case at bar, prevent the wife from being partially dependent upon contributions of a son by a former marriage who was killed; and if such contributions were material to the mother's subsistence, the Compensation Commission did not err in making an award in her favor. Appeal from Phillips Circuit Court ; E. M. Pipkin, Judge ; affirmed. Buzbee, Harrison & Wright, for appellant. K. T. Sutton, for appellee. GRIFFIN SMITH, Chief justice. Circuit Court affirmed Workmen's Compensation Commission in awdrding $7.55 per week during dependency (and certain incidental sums). The appeal questions Gracy Nelson's right to collea -any sum, contention being that she was supported by her 4usband. Will, seventeen years of age, was burned to death in December, 1943, while engaged in the Company 's service, etc. There was testimony that McKinley Nelson, the decedent's step-father, supported his wife, and efforts were made to show that any money given Gracy by her
ARK.] 867 son was a gratuity. On the other band, there was evidence that Will had for some time made material contributions to his mother and that to a certain extent she relied upon his efforts. Tbe Commission found tbat necessary elements of support existed. We are not able to say there was no substantial testimony to support this factual. finding. In its conclusions of law the Commission employed these expressions : "At the time of Curley's]. accidental death his mother was dependent upon him within• the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act, as no distinction is made as to total or partial dependency." In Arthur Murray Company, lnc., v. Cole, ante,. p. 61, 189 S. W. 2d 614, we said: " The appeal is controlled by Crossett Lumber Company v. Johnson, 208 Ark. 572, 187 S. W. 2d 161. It was there held that 'dependent,' within the meaning of Act 319, is to be distinguished from 'wholly dependent. One is dependent if he or she relies partially upon contributions of a person whose aid contributes a material element in the claimant's support." Affirmed:
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.