652 ARTICLE 101.

the decision of the Commission shall be prima facie correct and the burden
of proof shall be upon the party attacking the same.

Under this section and sec. 63, principal contractor and its insurer entitled to
participate in appeal by sub-contractor, in order to protect rights under sec. 62;
better practice to petition for amendment of titling. Core Contracting Co. v.
Schaeffer, 151 Md. 502 (decided prior to act 1927, ch. 587).

Where testimony of witnesses before commission is read to jury, court prop-
erly refused to allow same witnesses repeat testimony to jury. Case may be
tried before court without jury. Harvey v. Roche & Son, 148 Md. 366 (decided
prior to act 1927, ch. 587).

Proceedings before commission, and upon appeal, are "Informal and sum-
mary" and formal pleadings have no place in them; issues properly rejected.
Prayers. "Arising out of and in course of employment. " Owners' Realty Co.
v. Bailey, 153 Md. 278 (decided June 9, 1927).

Though witnesses in jurisdiction of court, testimony from record before com-
mission may be read; error, however—though not prejudicial in this case—for
counsel of claimant to read jury evidence introduced by employer and insurer-
Savage Mfg. Co. v. Magne, 154 Md. 51.

Conclusion of commission that injury arose out of employment places burden
upon party appealing of proving contrary; when only trial court may withdraw
case from jury. Todd v. Furniture Co. 147 Md. 354 (decided prior to act 1927,
ch. 587).

In view of this section, court may not on appeal from commission, where there
is conflict of evidence, decide as matter of law that finding by commission of
permanent partial disability was error. Bottling Works v. Lilly, 154 Md. 244.

Failure to accept medical attention. When granting of erroneous issue and
refusal of proper one not prejudicial; prayers—burden of proof. See notes to
sec. 42. McCulloh & Co. v. Restivo, 152 Md. 68 (decided prior to act 1927,
ch. 587).

Decision of commission on question of wilful misconduct prima facie correct.
Court of Appeals does not review questions of fact, but of law only; burden of
proof. Harris v. Dobson & Co... 150 Md. 75 (decided prior to act 1927, ch. 587).

Where contract is indefinite or evidence conflicting, question as to whether one
is independent contractor or employee is for jury; facts undisputed; question
of law; erroneous prayers. Bogatsky v. Swerdlin, 152 Md. 22; Hygeia Ice, etc.,
Co. v. Schaeffer, 152 Md. 235 (decided prior to act 1927, ch. 587).

Amendment by adding wife and next friend as appellant, proper; no excep-
tion. Bramble v. Shields, 146 Md. 507.

This section referred to in construing sec. 58—see notes thereto. Md. Casualty
Co. v. Elec. Mfg. Co., 145 Md. 652.

See notes to secs. 10 and 65.

57.

See notes to sec. 14.

Miscellaneous.

58.

This section does not create new liability, but designates manner of enforcing
liability theretofore existing and changes parties benefited. Not necessary to
make state legal plaintiff in case suit is brought by dependents of deceased em-
ployee; jury may apportion verdict among dependents, after awarding insurer
amount paid by latter. Fall of scantling—presumption of negligence. Clough
& Molloy v. Shilling, 149 Md. 192.

Injured employee or dependents not entitled to damages recovered from "other
person" until employer is reimbursed for all payments under award, including
court costs; counsel of widow of employee in suit against tort-feasor not entitled
to compensation from insurer. Widow not statutory agent of insurer. Barrett
v. Indemnity Co., 152 Md. 259.

In suit by injured employee against person other than employer, not necessary
for jury to find no action by employer or insurer was brought, if this is con-
ceded. Entry to use of employer or insurer; apportionment of verdict. Stark
v. Gripp, 150 Md. 657.