1324 ARTICLE 101.

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, 153 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. Cas-
ualty Co. v. Elec. Mfg. Co., 145 Md. 652.

Jury trial on issues of fact not essential to validity of Workmen's Compensa-
tion Law; provision that appeal from award shall not act as stay is valid.
Branch v. Indemnity Ins. Co., 156 Md. 483.

The provisions of this section as to burden of proof after award by the Com-
mission held to apply. Weston-Dodson Co. v. Carl, 156 Md. 535.

Refusal or failure of Commission to excuse delay of claimant is reviewable
on appeal. Shipbuilding Co. v. Praviewski, 156 Md. 412.

When facts are conceded or undisputed, and there is no dispute as to infer-
ences to be drawn, their legal significance is a matter of law to be determined
by the court. Engineering Co. v. Harris, 157 Md. 491.

This section referred to in construing secs. 14, 30, et seq. Owners' Realty Co.
v. Bailey, 157 Md. 143.

Where accident occurred in Baltimore County, held that Baltimore City Court
had jurisdiction of an appeal from rejection of her petition on account of hus-
band's death, as there was evidence that she continued to reside for consider-
able periods in the city and declared she intended to reside there. Bethlehem
Steel Co. v. Traylor, 158 Md. 117.

Where evidence is to effect that disease (Bright's) complained of did not
arise out of or in the course of employment, but can only be ascribed to the
inherent nature and probable course of employment, without any supervening
accidental injury, the question of right to compensation is one of law for the
court. Ganter v. Sharp & Dohme, 159 Md. 438.

Where claimant fails to appeal within thirty clays from order disallowing his
claim, he cannot appeal from a subsequent order of the Commission refusing to
reopen the case. Question as to whether Commission should reopen case is not
question for the jury. Gold Dust Corp. v. Zabawa, 159 Md. 664.

To first note under heading "Burden of proof" on page 3141, vol. 2, of Code,
add Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Bittinger, 159 Md. 268.

The requirement that the decision of the Commission shall on appeal be taken
as prima Jade correct does not apply where only question is one of statutory
construction. Beyer v. Decker, 159 Md. 291.

The Baltimore City Court has no jurisdiction to hear appeal from Industrial
Accident Commission by resident of Baltimore County on account of accident
which occurred in that county. Miller v. Bethlehem Steel Co., 160 Md. 659.

Statutory provision that in case of appeals, the correctness of the decision of
the Commission shall be determined from the record made before the Commis-
sion applies to appeals then pending, the former provision having been repealed