Page:North Dakota Law Review Vol. 2 No. 2 (1925).pdf/5

Rh

Injuries suffered by stevedore, while loading ship in navigable waters, not compensable under Workmen's Compensation Law of State, the matter being wholly within admiralty jurisdiction.—Jordan vs. Leyland & Co., 7 Fed. Rep. 386, (La.).

Where a third party is liable for an injury sustained by a workman, he must elect whether he desires to take under the act or to seek his remedy against the third party. If he elects to take under the act, the state alone can sue for the benefit of the accident fund.—Holmes vs. Jennings & Sons, 7 Fed. Rep. 231, (Ore.).

The findings of the Industrial Accident Commission on conflicting evidence is final and conclusive on Supreme Court.—Standard Varnish Works vs. Accident Commission, 239 Pac. 1067, (Cal.). To same effect is Pierce vs. Barker, 205 N. W. 496, (Wis.).

The findings of the Industrial Accident Commission are subject to review only insofar as they have been made without any evidence whatever in support thereof.-Stacey Bros. vs. Accident Commission, 239 Pac. 1072, (Cal.).

A lineman, while in the employ of his original master and as a member of a lineman's crew, was directed to dismantle a derrick erected by the master at the request of a contractor, and who was at all times during the course of the work under the direction and control of the original master, through its foreman, is not an employe of the contractor, but of the original master.—Stacey Bros. vs. Accident Commission, 239 Pac. 1072, (Cal.).

The burden of proving that the disability claimed is due to an injury sustained in the course of employment and not to something else is upon the claimant.—Simpson Construction Co. vs. Industrial Commission, 240 Pac. 58, (Cal.). To same effect is Curtis-Warner vs. Gorman, 130 Atl. 538, (N. J.).

A contractor who holds a contract to deliver U. S. mail along a star route, and who hires employes to deliver the mail, is subject to the State Workmen's Compensation Act, notwithstanding the employe, while delivering such mail, is engaged in a public function. Generally an employe who is injured while on his way to or from work is not entitled to compensation, in the absence of special circumstances bringing the accident within the scope of the employment.—Comstock vs. Bivens, 239 Pac. 869, (Colo.).

The provision of the Compensation Act granting a 50% increase of the award made in claims against employers who have failed to comply