Case Name: HAMILTON et al. v. TEXAS CO.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1922-05-01
Citations: 151 La. 692
Docket Number: No. 24671
Parties: HAMILTON et al. v. TEXAS CO.
Judges: By Division C, composed of Justices DAWICINS, ST. PAUL, and THOMPSON.
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 151
Pages: 691–695

Head Matter:
(92 South. 301)
No. 24671.
HAMILTON et al. v. TEXAS CO.
(May 1, 1922.
Rehearing Denied by Division A June 5, 1922.)
(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
1. Master and servant <&wkey;388 — Parents, though entitled to minor’s wages, may be “dependents” within Compensation Act.
That a minor’s parents were entitled to receive, and that he turned over to them, his entire wages, did not show that he was dependent on the parents, rather than the parents dependent on him in view of the reciprocal duty of support imposed by law on parent and child. ,,
2. Master and servant &wkey;>388 — Parents of minor child held “dependent” within Compen- ■ sation Act.
Where decedent 20 years old earned $4.75 a day, his father $5.25 a day, and a younger son $4.50 a day as laborers, and they pooled their earnings for payment of family living expenses, and one-half or more of deceased’s earnings were used to pay grocery bills, bills for clothing, etc., for other members of the family, the parents were dependent on deceased to some extent, within the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
Appeal from First Judicial District Court, Parish of Caddo; J. R. Land, Judge.
Action under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, by Louis A. Hamilton and another against the Texas Company, for compensation for the death of plaintiffs’ minor son Mark Hamilton. Judgment awarding compensation, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Hampden Story, J. S. Atkinson, and Alex F. Smith, all of Shreveport, for appellant.
Robert A. Hunter and J. M. Grimmet, both of Shreveport, for appeilees.
By Division C, composed of Justices DAWICINS, ST. PAUL, and THOMPSON.

Opinion:
DAWKINS, J.
Plaintiffs sue under the Workmen's Compensation Act (Act No. 20 of 1914) for the death of their minor son Mark Hamilton.
Defendant pleaded the exception of no cause of action, based upon the allegation that the said minor gave to his said parents all of the wages which he earned in its employ, and from which it was argued that the said son thereby became dependent upon them for his support, in view of the fact that it was further alleged that-they had the right under the law to demand and receive his wages. The exception was overruled, and the defendant answered denying that plaintiffs were dependent to any extent upon the deceased.
There was judgment for plaintiffs as prayed for, and defendant appealed.
Opinion.
Exception of no cause of action.
The petition does affirmatively allege that plaintiffs were dependent upon the earnings of their said son for support; and, while it is also alleged that they were entitled to receive and that he 'did turn over to them his entire wages, we do not think that, in view of the other allegations, this disclosed a condition of dependency of said son upon the parents. It might easily be that a son, who would give all of his earnings to his father or mother or both, would be the sole support of the entire family, and certainly this could not be said to create a condition of dependency of the son upon the parent or parents, either in fact or law. In fact, the law imposes reciprocally upon parent and child the duty of support where their circumstances require it; and we think the petition, as a whole, does allege facts showing a condition of dependency by the plaintiffs upon the earnings of the deceased.