contention of defendant error in Oklahoma

1910That an agreement in a contract of •affreightment that a carrier shall not be liable unless claim shall -be made therefor within a specified period, if that period be a reasonable one, is not against public policy and is valid, is determined against the contention of defendant in error in Southern Express Co. v. Caldwell, 21 Wall. 264 , 22 L.

1910That an agreement in a contract of •affreightment that a carrier shall not be liable unless claim shall -be made therefor within a specified period, if that period be a reasonable one, is not against public policy and is valid, is determined against the contention of defendant in error in Southern Express Co. v. Caldwell, 21 Wall. 264 , 22 L.

1949With reference to said case, defendant in error in its brief says: “We deliberately and advisedly say that such case fully and completely sustains the contention of defendant in error in this case.” Therein this court had under consideration a question which called for the construction of 85 O.S. 1941 §49, supra, and in the opinion said: “The contention that said section 49 is self-executing and therefore that plaintiff’s claim for insurance premiums is a lien upon all the assets of contractor and thus inclusive of the retained percentage of the contract price is contrary to our holding in Pau

1949With reference to said case, defendant in error in its brief says: “We deliberately and advisedly say that such case fully and completely sustains the contention of defendant in error in this case.” Therein this court had under consideration a question which called for the construction of 85 O.S. 1941 §49, supra, and in the opinion said: “The contention that said section 49 is self-executing and therefore that plaintiff’s claim for insurance premiums is a lien upon all the assets of contractor and thus inclusive of the retained percentage of the contract price is contrary to our holding in Pau

1937In Janeway v. Whitaker, 106 Okla. 83 , 233 P. 197 , the grantor, in conveying the land, said: “Excepting all rights in the oil and gas within and under the said described land, which rights in the' oil and gas are reserved to the parties of the first part.” This court held this language sufficient to retain the oil and gas mineral rights in the real estate conveyed, saying: “It is not the oil and gas reserved, but 'all right to the oil and gas.’ This court has consistently held in many cases that the only right that one can have, and all the right one can have in oil and ■ gas, apart from the

1937In Janeway v. Whitaker, 106 Okla. 83 , 233 P. 197 , the grantor, in conveying the land, said: “Excepting all rights in the oil and gas within and under the said described land, which rights in the' oil and gas are reserved to the parties of the first part.” This court held this language sufficient to retain the oil and gas mineral rights in the real estate conveyed, saying: “It is not the oil and gas reserved, but 'all right to the oil and gas.’ This court has consistently held in many cases that the only right that one can have, and all the right one can have in oil and ■ gas, apart from the

1935The Supreme Court of California, which state has the same statutory provisions as ours, seems to hold with the contention of defendant in error, in the cases of Merchants Ad-Sign Co. v. Sterling, 124 Cal. 429 ; Spring Valley Waterworks v. Schottler, 62 Cal. 69 , Dodge Stationery Co. v. Dodge, 145 Cal. 380 , Cavasso v. Downey, 45 Cal. App. 780 , and Chamberlain v. Augustine et al., 156 P 479 .

1935The Supreme Court of California, which state has the same statutory provisions as ours, seems to hold with the contention of defendant in error, in the cases of Merchants Ad-Sign Co. v. Sterling, 124 Cal. 429 ; Spring Valley Waterworks v. Schottler, 62 Cal. 69 , Dodge Stationery Co. v. Dodge, 145 Cal. 380 , Cavasso v. Downey, 45 Cal. App. 780 , and Chamberlain v. Augustine et al., 156 P 479 .

1935The Supreme Court of California, which state has the same statutory provisions as ours, seems to hold with the contention of defendant in error, in the cases of Merchants Ad-Sign Co. v. Sterling, 124 Cal. 429 ; Spring Valley Waterworks v. Schottler, 62 Cal. 69 , Dodge Stationery Co. v. Dodge, 145 Cal. 380 , Cavasso v. Downey, 45 Cal. App. 780 , and Chamberlain v. Augustine et al., 156 P 479 .

1935The Supreme Court of California, which state has the same statutory provisions as ours, seems to hold with the contention of defendant in error, in the cases of Merchants Ad-Sign Co. v. Sterling, 124 Cal. 429 ; Spring Valley Waterworks v. Schottler, 62 Cal. 69 , Dodge Stationery Co. v. Dodge, 145 Cal. 380 , Cavasso v. Downey, 45 Cal. App. 780 , and Chamberlain v. Augustine et al., 156 P 479 .

1935The Supreme Court of California, which state has the same statutory provisions as ours, seems to hold with the contention of defendant in error, in the cases of Merchants Ad-Sign Co. v. Sterling, 124 Cal. 429 ; Spring Valley Waterworks v. Schottler, 62 Cal. 69 , Dodge Stationery Co. v. Dodge, 145 Cal. 380 , Cavasso v. Downey, 45 Cal. App. 780 , and Chamberlain v. Augustine et al., 156 P 479 .

1935The Supreme Court of California, which state has the same statutory provisions as ours, seems to hold with the contention of defendant in error, in the cases of Merchants Ad-Sign Co. v. Sterling, 124 Cal. 429 ; Spring Valley Waterworks v. Schottler, 62 Cal. 69 , Dodge Stationery Co. v. Dodge, 145 Cal. 380 , Cavasso v. Downey, 45 Cal. App. 780 , and Chamberlain v. Augustine et al., 156 P 479 .

1935The Supreme Court of California, which state has the same statutory provisions as ours, seems to hold with the contention of defendant in error, in the cases of Merchants Ad-Sign Co. v. Sterling, 124 Cal. 429 ; Spring Valley Waterworks v. Schottler, 62 Cal. 69 , Dodge Stationery Co. v. Dodge, 145 Cal. 380 , Cavasso v. Downey, 45 Cal. App. 780 , and Chamberlain v. Augustine et al., 156 P 479 .

1935The Supreme Court of California, which state has the same statutory provisions as ours, seems to hold with the contention of defendant in error, in the cases of Merchants Ad-Sign Co. v. Sterling, 124 Cal. 429 ; Spring Valley Waterworks v. Schottler, 62 Cal. 69 , Dodge Stationery Co. v. Dodge, 145 Cal. 380 , Cavasso v. Downey, 45 Cal. App. 780 , and Chamberlain v. Augustine et al., 156 P 479 .

1935The Supreme Court of California, which state has the same statutory provisions as ours, seems to hold with the contention of defendant in error, in the cases of Merchants Ad-Sign Co. v. Sterling, 124 Cal. 429 ; Spring Valley Waterworks v. Schottler, 62 Cal. 69 , Dodge Stationery Co. v. Dodge, 145 Cal. 380 , Cavasso v. Downey, 45 Cal. App. 780 , and Chamberlain v. Augustine et al., 156 P 479 .

1935The Supreme Court of California, which state has the same statutory provisions as ours, seems to hold with the contention of defendant in error, in the cases of Merchants Ad-Sign Co. v. Sterling, 124 Cal. 429 ; Spring Valley Waterworks v. Schottler, 62 Cal. 69 , Dodge Stationery Co. v. Dodge, 145 Cal. 380 , Cavasso v. Downey, 45 Cal. App. 780 , and Chamberlain v. Augustine et al., 156 P 479 .

1931As stated by this court in the case of Looney v. Leeper, Secretary of State, 145 Okla. 202 , 292 P. 365 , in the third paragraph of the syllabus: “The embodiment in the provision of the Legislature proposing' a constitutional amendment that it shall be submitted at the nest general election or at any special election is purely surplusage, for the Constitution by article 24, sec. 1, expressly provides how such an amendment as described in section 2 hereof, shall be submitted to the people, and that is, where a majority of each house vote for the amendment (without a two-thirds majority of each

1931As stated by this court in the case of Looney v. Leeper, Secretary of State, 145 Okla. 202 , 292 P. 365 , in the third paragraph of the syllabus: “The embodiment in the provision of the Legislature proposing' a constitutional amendment that it shall be submitted at the nest general election or at any special election is purely surplusage, for the Constitution by article 24, sec. 1, expressly provides how such an amendment as described in section 2 hereof, shall be submitted to the people, and that is, where a majority of each house vote for the amendment (without a two-thirds majority of each

1929That case does not support the action al the trial -ourt and the contention of defendant in error, and would settle this controversy, were it not for the fact that this court, in the recent case of Commercial Investment Trust Co. v. Farve et al., 334 Okla. 133 , 273 Pac. 226 , had under consideration a case involving a state of facts identical with the facts involved in the present case, and therein held that the notes could not be introduced in evidence over the objection of the adverse party, unless the tax, as provided in said section 9608 of the statutes, had been paid.

1926Eikelberger v. Insurance Co. (Kan.) 189 Pac. 139 , was a case very similar to this *127 one.

1915The second contention has also been determined adversely to him in the following Oklahoma cases: Barnes v. Lynch, 9 Okla. 11 , 59 Pac. 995 ; Burnett v. Davis, 27 Okla. 124 , 111 Pac. 191 .” This case, with the authorities cited, we regard as squarely in point against the contention of defendant in error, as, under the facts of that case, the time for serving case-made expired on August 28, while the case-made was in fact not settled until September 12, 1910, which was after the time fixed by the order for suggesting amendments, and the case-made in that case was held to be valid, and it was fu

1915The second contention has also been determined adversely to him in the following Oklahoma cases: Barnes v. Lynch, 9 Okla. 11 , 59 Pac. 995 ; Burnett v. Davis, 27 Okla. 124 , 111 Pac. 191 .” This case, with the authorities cited, we regard as squarely in point against the contention of defendant in error, as, under the facts of that case, the time for serving case-made expired on August 28, while the case-made was in fact not settled until September 12, 1910, which was after the time fixed by the order for suggesting amendments, and the case-made in that case was held to be valid, and it was fu

1915The case of Dobbs v. State, 5 Okla.

1915The second contention has also been determined adversely to him in the following Oklahoma cases: Barnes v. Lynch, 9 Okla. 11 , 59 Pac. 995 ; Burnett v. Davis, 27 Okla. 124 , 111 Pac. 191 .” This case, with the authorities cited, we regard as squarely in point against the contention of defendant in error, as, under the facts of that case, the time for serving case-made expired on August 28, while the case-made was in fact not settled until September 12, 1910, which was after the time fixed by the order for suggesting amendments, and the case-made in that case was held to be valid, and it was fu

1915The second contention has also been determined adversely to him in the following Oklahoma cases: Barnes v. Lynch, 9 Okla. 11 , 59 Pac. 995 ; Burnett v. Davis, 27 Okla. 124 , 111 Pac. 191 .” This case, with the authorities cited, we regard as squarely in point against the contention of defendant in error, as, under the facts of that case, the time for serving case-made expired on August 28, while the case-made was in fact not settled until September 12, 1910, which was after the time fixed by the order for suggesting amendments, and the case-made in that case was held to be valid, and it was fu

1913This court, in Jantzen v. German Emanuel Baptist Church, 27 Okla. 473 , 112 Pac. 1127 , which was an action of replevin, held that ownership of personal property is ordinarily a simple fact, to which a witness can testify directly, and, in an action of replevin, a question as to who is the owner of the property involved, where such question involves a fact clearly within the knowledge of the witness, and not. an expression of an opinion upon the facts proven, is admissible.

1913This court, in Jantzen v. German Emanuel Baptist Church, 27 Okla. 473 , 112 Pac. 1127 , which was an action of replevin, held that ownership of personal property is ordinarily a simple fact, to which a witness can testify directly, and, in an action of replevin, a question as to who is the owner of the property involved, where such question involves a fact clearly within the knowledge of the witness, and not. an expression of an opinion upon the facts proven, is admissible.

1913Lee, post, 130 Pac. 956 , in favor of the contention of defendant in error.

1912Phoenix Insurance Co. v. Ceaphus, 29 Okla. 608 , 119 Pac. 583 ; State Mutual Ins.

1912Phoenix Insurance Co. v. Ceaphus, 29 Okla. 608 , 119 Pac. 583 ; State Mutual Ins.

1910There is no statute fixing the fees to be allowed for the services rendered thereunder nor providing the disposition thereof, and it is the contention of defendant in error that by virtue of the statute of the state above noted it was the duty of the county judge to report such fees, or money, as he received for approving the deeds mentioned to the county commissioners, and to pay the same into the county treasury, as belonging to Hughes county In support of this claim, counsel relies principally upon two cases, Finley v. Territory of Oklahoma, 12 Okla. 621 , 73 Pac. 273 , and Rhea v. Board of

1910There is no statute fixing the fees to be allowed for the services rendered thereunder nor providing the disposition thereof, and it is the contention of defendant in error that by virtue of the statute of the state above noted it was the duty of the county judge to report such fees, or money, as he received for approving the deeds mentioned to the county commissioners, and to pay the same into the county treasury, as belonging to Hughes county In support of this claim, counsel relies principally upon two cases, Finley v. Territory of Oklahoma, 12 Okla. 621 , 73 Pac. 273 , and Rhea v. Board of

1910There is no statute fixing the fees to be allowed for the services rendered thereunder nor providing the disposition thereof, and it is the contention of defendant in error that by virtue of the statute of the state above noted it was the duty of the county judge to report such fees, or money, as he received for approving the deeds mentioned to the county commissioners, and to pay the same into the county treasury, as belonging to Hughes county In support of this claim, counsel relies principally upon two cases, Finley v. Territory of Oklahoma, 12 Okla. 621 , 73 Pac. 273 , and Rhea v. Board of

1910There is no statute fixing the fees to be allowed for the services rendered thereunder nor providing the disposition thereof, and it is the contention of defendant in error that by virtue of the statute of the state above noted it was the duty of the county judge to report such fees, or money, as he received for approving the deeds mentioned to the county commissioners, and to pay the same into the county treasury, as belonging to Hughes county In support of this claim, counsel relies principally upon two cases, Finley v. Territory of Oklahoma, 12 Okla. 621 , 73 Pac. 273 , and Rhea v. Board of

1910Thorp v. Mindeman, 133 Wis. 149 , 101 N. W. 417 , 68 L.

1909Moberly v. Roth, 23 Okla. 856 , 102 Pac. 182 ; Kelley v. McCombs et al. 23 Okla. 867 , 102 Pac. 186 .

1909Moberly v. Roth, 23 Okla. 856 , 102 Pac. 182 ; Kelley v. McCombs et al. 23 Okla. 867 , 102 Pac. 186 .

1909Moberly v. Roth, 23 Okla. 856 , 102 Pac. 182 ; Kelley v. McCombs et al. 23 Okla. 867 , 102 Pac. 186 .

1909Moberly v. Roth, 23 Okla. 856 , 102 Pac. 182 ; Kelley v. McCombs et al. 23 Okla. 867 , 102 Pac. 186 .

1903(Marion v. Marion, 54 Kans. 270 ; Shy v. Brockhause, 7 Okla. 35 .) *389 The judgment of the district court is affirmed, with costs to plaintiffs in error.

1903(Marion v. Marion, 54 Kans. 270 ; Shy v. Brockhause, 7 Okla. 35 .) *389 The judgment of the district court is affirmed, with costs to plaintiffs in error.

1895The.case of Winfield Town Co. v. Moris et col., 11 Kan. 128 , is cited in support of the contention of defendant in error.