WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION. 3143

otherwise have been made thereafter in the same case under the provisions
of this Article and said case shall thereupon be deemed to have been finally
settled and closed.

This section (as it stood prior to act of 1920, ch. 456) did not permit dependents
to proceed against " other person " and against employer for compepsation, but
only against one or other. Prayers containing no reference to compensation paid
by either employer or insurer are defective. Count inapplicable to a suit under
this section. Verdict under this section wholly and only' for damages sustained
by dependents because of death complained of, such verdict being apportioned
among dependents, is reversible error. Effect of " cost plus " contract. Steel Co. v.
Concrete Pile Co., 141 Md. 87.

Where a widow secures workmen's compensation benefits, she cannot thereafter
bring suit at law against a third party responsible for death of her husband; under
this section she must elect between claiming compensation and suing at law. See,
however, sec. 45. Hagerstown v. Schreiner, 135 Md. 651 (decided prior to act
1920, ch. 456). And see Jirout v. Gebelein, 142 Md. 697.

Where an injured man has been awarded compensation, a suit may be brought
against a third party at fault and same measure of recovery applies as if injured
employee had elected to pursue his remedy against such third party. That suit is
in name of employer for benefit of insurance company and injured employee, if not
in strict compliance with the statute, is immaterial, as act expressly directs appli-
cation of amount recovered. Bethlehem Steel Co. v. Variety Co., 139 Md. 325.

The agreement of a contractor engaged in operations upon railroad property to
indemnify railroad company against liability for injuries sustained by a.iy person
because of such operations is not a bar to an action against railroad company
under this section. Proper parties. State v. N. Y., P. & N. B. Co., 141 Md. 307.

Prayers and evidence considered in a suit under this section, compensation hav-
ing been paid by employer. No liability. B. & O. R. R. Co. v. Walsh, 142 Md. 231.

For a suit brought by employer against certain corporations in accordance with
this section, see Kaufman Beef Co. v. United Rwys. Co., 135 Md. 526.

Cited but not construed in Hyde v. Blumenthal, 136 Md. 451.

See notes to sec. 15.

An. Code, sec. 59. 1914, ch. 800, sec. 58.

59. If the provisions of this article relative to compensation for in-
juries to or death of employes become invalid because of any adjudication,
or be repealed, the period intervening between the occurrence of an injury
or death, not previously compensated for under this article by lump pay-
ment or completed periodical payments shall not be computed as a part
of the time limited by law for the commencement of any action relating
to such injury or death. Providedj that such action be commenced within
one year after such repeal or adjudication, but in any such action any
sum paid to the employe on account of injury for which the action is
prosecuted, shall be taken into account or disposed of as follows: If the
defendant employer shall have insured himself as provided for in this
article without delinquency, such sums as may have been paid to the em-
ploye or his dependents on account of injury or death, shall be credited
upon recovery as payment thereon.

The workmen's compensation act is not in violation of either Federal or Md.
Constitution. Scheme of act. The phrase " the law of the land " in Md. Constitu-
tion means same as " due process of law" in Federal Constitution. New York
Central R. R. Co. v. White, 243 U. S. 188, quoted and approved. The workmen's
compensation commission is not a court and is not clothed with judicial power
within meaning of constitutional provisions. Solvuca v. Ryan & Reilly Co 131
Md. 265.