The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1908-07-15

the same action may be looked into
for the purpose OF ascertaining what
facts and questions were before the
court. so as to see to the proper ap-
lplication Of the rule that such deci
sion is the law Of the case.
4. If upon a cause being remanded
for new trial. the court below has
proceeded in substantial conformity
to the directions Of the appellate court,
It's action win not be questioned on
second appeal
J. II. LooksDaugh. VS. John Bow.
maker. Opinion by Justice ayes
Syllabus
1. 1t is not error for tne trial court
to permit plaintiff. before judgment,
to amend his petition to conform to
the facts proved when such amend
ment does not substantially change
the cause of action.
g One who seeks to cancel a mort
gage upon the grounds that same was
obtained from him fraudulently and
was fraudulently altered by the mort
gagee to include other property not
described the-ein when executed does
not change his cause OF action by
amending mis- petition so as to charge
that said mortgage is q forgery and
a substitution for the mortgage which
was read to him and which he was
asked TO sign.
3 Where a cause is submitted to
q trial court without a jury upon evil
dence upon all points necessary to
be included in all findings made by
the court and when such evidence
fairly tends to support the findings
of the court, such findings will be
conclusive upon the supreme court
VIM J. Lemp Brewing Co. vs.. c.
! A. Secor ct al Affirmed. Opinion
by Chief Justice Williams. Syllabus:
l. Where the principal and the
agent Of the obligee in an obligation
or bond represent to certain persons
to induce them to sign the same as
sureties that certain other parties had
agreed to sign the same also as sure
ties. and further that none OF said
sureties signing the same were to be
Dound on said bond, nor was the same
] 10 be delivered to said obligee until
said designated parties had signed
the same, said obligation or bond Is
neither q completed contract nor bind
Ing upon said sureties; and though
said obligee notified said sureties by
mail that ne had received same. des
ignating the names Of the obligors
thereon, said obligation or bond being
to secure d pre-existlng debt, said
sureties not having responded to said
letter from said ohligee. and such cir
cnmstances as matter of law, would
not constitute an assent.
2. Whore the agent Of the obligee
In bond or obligating agrees that
such bond or obligation shall not be.
come binding until certain designated
persons have signed the same. and
that said bond or obligation shall not
be delivered TO the partys represented
by said agent unless Il was so signed.
and thereafter, in violation of such
agreement and representations. the
Same Is delivered 10 the party repre-
sented BY said agent. and such party.
disregarding such representations and
agreement approves the same and
notiaes said sureties thereon. there
by yerying the original agreement said
HNt Nt-N' VIII AttA hthbiltN AtdDlt On
said bond or obligation until they as
sent thereto.
3. An assem- IS evidenced by a pro
position elnanating from one side and
an acceptance Of IL on the other: such
proposition end acceptance together
constituting wat is called a meeting
of the minds, and where the proof
fails to show that there was q meet
ing Of the minds" in the making Of a
contract. such contract does not be-
come effective.
Duniap and Taylor. vs. John Flow.
90. et al Reversed Opinion by
Justice Hayes, syllabus.
J. An alleged error of tie trial court
In refusing 10 gise a requested in-
struction IN a case pending on the
docket Of the United States court OF
appeals Of the indian Territory at the
time ol the admission OF tho state
will be dssresarded By this court un.
less such requested instruction be set