Workmen’s Compensation Law — Placing of Liability — Policy of Law.-—It is the policy of the workmen’s compensation law to place the liability upon the business, or industry, in which the employee is engaged, by placing the responsibility for indemnity upon t'he employer.

Id.—Definition of “Employer” and “Employee.”—The constitutional-provisions authorizing the workmen’s compensation law of necessity use the terms “employer” and “employee,” and it must follow that in defining such terms in any statute passed in pursuance thereof no definition therein contained can enlarge the scope of the constitutional authority.

Id.—General and Special Employment—Jurisdiction of Commission. As the law recognizes that an employee may at the same time be under a general and special employer, it would seem to follow that the jurisdiction of the commission might well be predicated on either the general or special employment or both.

Id.—Determination of Relationship — Resort to General Law.—In determining the question as -to whether or not the relationship of employer and employee exists, the general law as well as the terms of the statute itself must be looked to.

Id.—General and Special Employer Included in Definitions.—The definitions of “employer” and “employee” in the Workmen’s Compensation Act are broad enough to include both the general and t'he special employer.

Id.—General and Special Employment—Death of Employee—Joint Liability.—Under the Workmen’s ‘Compensation Act, a company engaged in the manufacture of cement and a partnership engaged in the business of installing and handling large machinery are jointly liable for the death of an employee while performing services on the premises of the Cement Company and for its benefit under an arrangement entered into between the company and the partnership whereby the partnership furnished men and a foreman, who were to be paid by the partnership with funds furnished by the company, the partnership retaining the power to hire and discharge, and both partnership and company being jointly associated in the carrying on of said work.

Id.—Policy of Indemnity—Correction for Mutual Mistake.—Where a policy insuring against liability fails because of mutual mistake to express the intent of the parties, it may be corrected, even after the happening of an accident, in the absence of estoppel, and if not done so as to defeat an employee’s right to compensation.

Id.—Death Arising Out of Employment—Evidence—Hearsay Declarations of Deceased.—The amendment to the workmen’s compensation’ law, passed in 1915 (Stats. 1915, pp. 1079, 1102, see. 77a), expressly permits hearsay declarations of. a deceased employee to prove that death arose out of the employment.