fact nécessary to make out his cause of action by a preponderance of the evidence and the burden is upon the defendant to establish the affirmative allegations or defenses set up in its answer by a preponderance of the evidence, was a correct general statement of the law governing the burden of proof and therefore unobjectional. (Syllabus by the Court. Jackson & Allen, for plaintiff in error. J. E. Whitehead and Wallace Wilkinson, Attorneys for defendant in error. ARDMORE OIL & MILLING. CO, Plaintiffs in Error. VS. TOM. ROBINSON, Defendant in error. (Rendered May 9th, 1911.) No. 863 Error from the District Court of Carter County. Hon. S. H. Russell, trial Judge. Affirmed 1. Where the service in which the servant is to be employed is such as to endanger the lives and persons of co-employes, the master, before engaging such ser vant, is required to make reasonable investigation into his character, skill and habits of life and he is also bound to institute affirmative inquiries in order to ascertain the qualifications of a servant whom he transfers to a more responsible position, for which special qualifications are necessary, unless the servant has given proof of his capacity in some similar position. 2. Whether an employer has made reasonable investigation into the character, skill and qualifications of a servant, is a question of fact for the jury. 3. It is not admissible for counsel to be quiet and allow the evidence to come out and take advantage of it if favorable and if not to ask that it be striken out and not considered. 4. Where the court before permitting the jury to view the premises where a personal injury occurred, asks counsel if they desire the jury to see the premises and counsel for the losing party answers: "I am willing to go with the jury on that part of it," he is not in a position to predicate error on the action of the court. (Syllabus by the Court.) Potterf & Walker, for plaintiff in error. Opinion of the Court by KANE, J. J. J. TERRY, Plaintiff in Error. VS. F. M. CREED, Defendant in Error. (Rendered May 9th, 1911.) Error from District Court of Bryan County. D. A. Richardson, trial Judge. No. 733 Reversed and Remanded Where there is no evidence reasonably tending to establish a material issue submitted to the jury under the instructions of the court, which the jury must have found in favor of the prevailing party in order to have returned the verdict rendered, the verdict will be set aside. (Syllabus by the Court.) T. O. Nelson, and Humphrey & Strange, for plaintiff in error. Utterback & Hayes, for defendant in error. E. D. JEFFERSON, Plaintiff in Error. V9. Robt. Toomer, Clerk of Superior Court of Muskogee County Oklahoma, Defendant in Error. (Rendered May 9th, 1911.) The act approved on the 19th day of March, 1910, entitled: "An Act relating to certain County and District Officers," is not invalid as being in conflict with sec. 57 art. 5 of the Constitution. Reversed JAMES CHARLES INMAN, Plaintiffs in Error, VS. No. 817 E. SHIERRILL, J. T. McCRACKEN and LIN ALEXANDER, Defendants in Error. (Rendered May 9th, 1911.) Error from District Court of Okmulgee County. Hon. John Caruthers, trial Judge. Affirmed 1. Where an officer, while doing an act within the limits of his official authority, exercises such authority improperly, or exceeds his official powers, or abuse an official discretion vested in him, he becomes liable on his official bond to the person injured. But where he acts without any process and without the authority of his office, in doing such act, he is not to be considered an officer, but a personal trespasser. 2. Sureties on the official bond of a constable are only answerable for the acts of their principal while engaged in the performance of some duty imposed upon him by law, or for an omission to perform some such duty. 3. Where a series of decisions of a court of last resort have been accepted and acted upon as the proper interpretation of the law for a long time, courts are slow to interfere with principles announced in the former decisions and often uphold them even though they would decide otherwise were the question a new one. (Syllabus by the Court.) Stanford & Cochran, Attorneys for plaintiff in error. ABNER B. BROWN, as Trustee of Ezra S. McLean and Abner B. Brown as Executor of Parmelia S. Wilson, Plaintiff in Error. VS. No. 852 Roscoe S. Hillman, et al., Executors of the Estate of Roscoe S. Hillman, Defendants in Error. (Rendered May 9th, 1911.) Error from District Court of Oklahoma County. Hon. Geo. W. Clark, trial Judge. Reversed and remanded After the issues were joined in an action on a foreign judgment, the defendant died and U. and R. were appointed executors of his estate, to whom the plaintiff presented his claim as required by law, and the same was rejected, and thereafter the court entered an order giving the plaintiff leave to amend his petition and allowing the defendants thirty days in which to answer and on the same day the petition was amended by setting up in addition to the former allegations therein the death of the defendant, the appointment of executors, and the presentation and rejection of the claim; and thereafter said executors filed their answer, which was a general appearance to the merits. Held, that such an appearance was a submission to jurisdiction and waived a formal revivor. (Syllabus by the Court.) J. H. Wright, for plaintiff in error. Everest Smith & Campbell, for the Executors. Opinion of the Court by KANE, J. OKLA. PORTLAND CEMENT CO, Plaintiffs in Error, VS. No. 472 P. E. and T. D. ANDERSON, Defendants in Error. (Rendered May 9th, 1911.) Error from County Court of Pontotoc County. Joel Terrell, trial Judge. Affirmed 1. The charter of a corporation, read in connection with the general laws applicable to it, is the measure of its powers, and a contract manifestly beyond those powers will not sustain an action against the corporation. But whatever, under the charter and the general laws, reasonably construed, may fairly be regarded as incidental to the objects for which the corporation is created, is not to be taken as prohibited. 2. Where the question of the appointment of an agent was submitted to the jury under an instruction to the effect that to entitle the plaintiff to recover damages for a breach of contract alleged to have been executed by M., the agent of the defendant, the jury must either find that M was the agent of the defendant at the time said alleged contract was entered into or that after the contract was made and with full knowledge of all the material facts relating thereto the defendant ratified the same and there was evidence reasonably tending to establish both the agency and the ratification, the finding of the jury is conclusive on appeal. (Syllabus by the Court.) Galbraith & McKeown, for plaintiff in error. Opinion of the Court by KANE, J. THE LATEST BANKRUPTCY DECISIONS. CORPORATIONS-Power of Bankruptcy Court to Enforce a Plan of Rerrganization without Assent of All Creditors-Compromise of Controversy." In re Northampton Portland Cement Co., 25 Am. B. R 565, holds that the bankruptcy court has no power under section 27 of the Bankruptcy Act, providing for the 'compromise of any controversy' nor under any provision of such act, to compel dissenting creditors of a bankrupt corporation to give up their existing claims and in their stead to accept stock in a new corporation to be formed to take over all the assets of bankrupt, and to assent to many other provisions such as are usually contained in a contract of reorganization, even though such a plan may be desireable and the usual course of administration certain to result in heavy loss. EXEMPTIONS-Objections to Trustee's Report Setting Apart Exemptions-Time of Filing.— In the case of In re Cotton & Preston, 25 Am. B. R. 532, it has been held that a creditor, desiring to object to the |