YOUNG et al. v. HYMAN MOTORS, INC., et al

Mr. J. Carl Kearse, of Bamberg, and Mr. Carlisle Roberts, of Columbia, for appellant, cite: As to dependency of wife: Secs. 7035-38, 1936 Supp. to 1932 Code; Acts of 1936, 1231 et seq.; 200 N.C. 221; 156 S.E., 849. As to benefits to surviving wife: 197 S.C. 157, 14 S.E.2d 889; 201 N.Y.S., 588; 207 App. Div., 1; 122 N.Y. Supp., 463; 63 S.C. 126; 40 S.E., 1030. As to validity of separation agreement: 203 App. Div., 302 (N.Y.); 13 Rich., 157; Williston on Contracts, Rev. Ed. (1938), Sec. 1742; 161 S.C. 358; 159 S.E., 652; 147 N.E., 440; 35 A.L. R., 235 (Ill.). As to evidence to support commission's findings: 197 S.C. 157; 14 S.E.2d 889. Mr. George W. Keels, of Florence, for respondent, cites: As to benefits of Compensation Law in this case: Secs. 2 (n), 38, 39, Workmen's Compensation Act; 70 Pa. Super., 202; 175 N.W., 132; 190 Mich., 112; 155 N.W., 721. As to reasonable inferences to be drawn from the testimony: Secs. 39, 2(n), Workmen's Compensation Act; 156 S.E., 849; 86 A.L.R., 885; 176 S.C. 260; 180 S.E., 55. Counsel for appellant, in reply brief, cite: 186 S.C. 374; 195 S.E., 646; 185 S.C. 497; 194 S.E., 447; 191 S.C. 165, 4 S.E.2d 7; 207 Mich., 605; 175 N.W., 132; 190 Mich., 112, 155 N.W., 721; 53 S.W.2d 384 (Tenn.); 182 N.E., 622; 244 N.W., 807.