
    Peavler et al. v. Francisco Mining Company.
    [No. 12,166.
    Filed March 10, 1925.]
    Master and Servant.—Dependency, under Workmen’s Compensation Act, question of fact for Industrial Board.—Under §38 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the question of dependency of the parents and brothers and sisters of a deceased employee is a question of fact for the Industrial Board, and its decision will be affirmed where there is some evidence to support it.
    From Industrial Board of Indiana.
    Proceeding under Workmen’s Compensation Act by Henry J. Peavler and others against the Francisco Mining Company. From the denial of an award, claimants appeal.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    
      John A. Riddle, for appellants.
    
      Will H. Hays, Hinckle C. Hays, Alonzo C. Owens, W: Paul Stratton, John S. Taylor, William H. Bridwell and George W. Buff, for appellee.
   Remy, J.

Donald Peavler, twenty-three years of age and unmarried, while in the employment of appellee, lost his life as a result of an accident which arose out of and in the course of his employment. His parents and minor brothers and sisters who survived him filed with the Industrial Board an application for compensation as dependents of the decedent. From an order of the board denying compensation, this appeal is prosecuted. The only question for determination is whether or not under the evidence, the decedent’s parents and brothers and sisters were his dependents within the meaning of §38 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act (Acts 1919 p. 158, §8020ul Burns’ Supp. 1921). The question was one of fact for the Industrial Board. There is evidence' to sustain the finding. See, Hoosier Veneer Co. v. Stewart (1920), 76 Ind. App. 1, 129 N. E. 246; Rasin v. Miami Coal Co. (1922), 79 Ind. App. 123, 137 N. E. 529.

Affirmed.  