There is no provision in tbe North Carolina Workmen’s Compensation Act for a rehearing of a proceeding in which tbe North Carolina Industrial Commission has made an award in accordance with tbe provisions of tbe act, on tbe ground of newly discovered evidence. It is provided in tbe act, however, that tbe Industrial Commission, on its own motion, or on tbe application of a party to tbe proceeding, may review an award made by tbe Commission, on tbe ground of a change of conditions since tbe award was made. Upon such review, tbe Commission may vacate and set aside an award previously made by it, or may diminish or increase tbe amount of compensation awarded, within tbe limits provided in tbe act. N. 0. Code of 1931, sec. 8081 (bbb). Tbe Commission also has tbe power to make rules not inconsistent with tbe act, for carrying out its provisions. N. C. Code of 1931, sec. 8081 (jjj). All tbe provisions of tbe act show that it was tbe purpose of tbe General Assembly that tbe Industrial Commission should have a continuing jurisdiction of all proceedings begun before tbe Commission for compensation in accordance with its terms. Tbe Superior Court has jurisdiction only when a party to a proceeding has appealed to said court on matters of law involved therein. Findings of fact made by tbe Commission are conclusive and when supported by evidence, cannot be reviewed by tbe Superior Court. We think it clear that tbe Commission has tbe power, in a proper case, and in accordance with its rules and regulations, to grant a rehearing of a proceeding pending before it, and in which it has made an award, on tbe ground of newly discovered evidence. See Byrd v. Lumber Co., 207 N. C., 253, 176 S. E., 572, and Ruth v. Carolina Cleaners, Inc., 206 N. C., 540, 174 S. E., 445.
Pursuant to tbe order of Judge Erizzelle, at June Term, 1933, of tbe Superior Court of Wayne County, tbis proceeding was pending before tbe North Carolina Industrial Commission at tbe time tbe order for a rehearing on tbe ground of newly discovered evidence was made by tbe Commission. Tbe order of Judge Erizzelle was in compliance with tbe order of tbis Court on tbe former appeal. When tbe proceeding was remanded from tbe Superior Court, where it was pending on appeal, to tbe Industrial Commission, although for a specific purpose, as stated in *189tbe order, the Superior Court surrendered its jurisdiction, and the Industrial Commission acquired jurisdiction for all purposes. See Finlayson v. Kirby, 127 N. C., 222, 37 S. E., 223.
There was error in the judgment reversing the order of the Industrial Commission for a rehearing- of the proceeding on the ground of newly discovered evidence, and in affirming the award made by the Commission on 6 October, 1931. The appeal from the order of the Commission to the Superior Court should have been dismissed. The judgment is