197 Mich. 364 | Mich. | 1917
(a-fter stating the facts). The order of the board indicates that it was based upon the theory that claimant was wholly dependent upon her deceased husband at the time of the accident. It does
We are quite convinced that under the circumstances of this case the claimant is not entitled to the benefit of the conclusive presumption of dependency upon the theory that she lived with her husband at the time of his death. Part 2, § 6, Act No. 10, Extra Session 1912 (2 Comp. Laws 1915, § 5436). After specifying in said section those who shall be conclusively presumed to be wholly dependent, the act provides:
“In all other cases questions of dependency, in whole or in part, shall be determined in accordance with the fact, as the fact may be at the time of the injury.”
We are of opinion that the facts in this case differ very materially from those in the Ludwig Case relied upon by appellant. There we held there was no evidence of dependency in fact, because the decedent never supported his wife either in Austria-Hungary or in the United States. The contrary appears in the case at bar. Here the decedent during all the years of his absence from his wife and child contributed to
The award is affirmed.