#### Martin Lavin, Administrator, Appellee, v. Wells Brothers Company, Appellant.

Gen. No. 20,799.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Clarence N. Goodwin, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1914.

Certiorari denied by Supreme Court (making opinion final).

Affirmed.

Opinion filed March 12, 1917.

Statement of the Case.

Action by Martin Lavin, administrator of the estate of Thomas Lavin, deceased, petitioner, against Wells Brothers Company, respondent, based upon an award in favor of the petitioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act of 1911. From a judgment for the petitioner for $3,500, on a trial without a jury in the Superior Court of Cook county upon appeal, respondent appeals.

The deceased was employed by the respondent as a laborer in a building being constructed by respondent *304as a contractor. He was working on the first floor of the building, carrying boards used to build a shanty around a motor. There were several unguarded openings in this floor. When last seen alive he was walking along the first floor carrying planks, and appeared to be looking for other planks. Ten or fifteen minutes later he was found in the basement suffering from injuries from which he died four days later. The evidence tended to show that the earnings of deceased were $17.23 per week.

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Workmen’s Compensation Act, § 12 * —when evidence tends to show that death arose out of course of employment. Evidence held to tend to show that the injuries and death of petitioner’s intestate arose out of his employment, in proceedings for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act of 1911.

2. Workmen’s Compensation Act, § 10*—when dependency need not he shown. Under section 4 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act of 1911 (J. & A. If 5452), where a deceased employee has contributed to any of the lineal heirs referred to in paragraph A, it is sufficient to authorize a recovery whether such person or persons were dependent upon the deceased for a support or not.

3. Workmen’s Compensation Act, § 10*—when dependency must he shown. Under paragraph B of section 4 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act of 1911 (J. & A. If 5452), dependency for support upon the deceased must be shown to authorize a recovery in the interest of his collateral relatives.

4. Workmen’s Compensation Act—when compensation allowed to aliens. Compensation is allowable under the Workmen’s Com*305pensation Act of 1911 to parents of a deceased employee notwithstanding they are nonresident aliens.

*304F. J. Canty and Zimmerman,' Meyers & Garrett, for appellant.

Gorman, Pollock, Sullivan & Livingston, for appellee.

*

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, ami Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

*

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Mr. Justice Dever

delivered the opinion of the court.

*3055. Workmen’s Compensation Act, § 12 * —when evidence tends to show contribution to support of parents. Evidence held to tend to show the deceased had contributed to the support of his parents within five years prior to his death, in proceedings for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act of 1911.

6. Workmen’s Compensation Act, § 12*—when coroner’s verdict is admissible in evidence. The verdict of a coroner’s jury held properly admitted in evidence, in proceedings for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act of 1911.

7. Workmen’s Compensation Act, § 8*—when evidence is sufficient to sustain an award of compensation for death. In proceedings for compensation for the death of an employee. under the Workmen’s Compensation Act of 1911, evidence held sufficient to sustain an award of $3,500 where the employee had been earning the average weekly wages of $17.23.