charity to those members of the profession who do not resort to.the books and to study as a sure, though not a short, means to an end. This lack of charity reminds me of a story of a very old man, a survivor of the Johnstown flood. Shortly thereafter, having passed the way of his forefathers he sought admittance into Paradise. He approached St. Peter; upon being challenged proved that he was worthy to enter. and thereupon was admitted into the Heavenly Abode. The first day he joined a group of old gentlemen, and being a newcomer, he was permitted to do most of the talking. The most natural thing for him was to dwell on the flood at Johnstown. He told of the terrible devastation to life and property, of the havoc played by the catastrophe, how trees and houses and bridges were uprooted by the velocity of the water. After he had concluded one old gentleman who had been a patient listner, in seeming disgust, arose and remarked, “Pshaw.” The next day when they were again gathered together our Johnstown friend went over the same ground and once more told of the flood at Johnstown. Perhaps he recollected certain instances which on the previous day he had forgotten. After he had concluded the same patient listener of the day before, who was equally attentive on this day, arose, and in a contempuous way, said, "The Devil." The third day came, and at a gathering of the same men, our Johnstown friend again told of the loss of life and the terrible misfortunes caused by the flood at Johnstown. After he had concluded the same old gentleman, who again had listened attentively, in a tone of extreme disgust, said, "Oh Hell." The narrator felt aggrieved at these remarks and made up his mind that he would complain to St. Peter. He accordingly went to him and told him that since his admittance he had been treated with uniform kindness, consideration and courtesy, that he had no reason to complain except that upon several occasions when he was telling of the flood at Johnstown he had been treated discourteously by one of the gentlemen present. Then he related just what had occurred. St. Peter listened, and then asked who it was who had made the remark. The old gentleman was pointed out, whereupon St. Peter asked, "Do you know who that is?' He was answered in the negative and was asked to tell who it was. St. Peter replied, "Why, that is Noah.' We all "Noah" what it is to say "Pshaw," at times we are inclined to say "The Devil," and once in a great while we are prone to say "Oh Hell," either to or at some lawyer who practices law by ear. CURRENT DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME O. P. COOPER, Plaintiff in Error, VS. THE FORT SMITH & WESTERN No. 189. (Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma.) Error from the County Court of Logan County. 1. An answer setting up a plea in bar to a suit on a promissory note given in aid of the construction of plaintiff's line of road which alleges, in substance, that the time it was executed plaintiff, was and still is, a foreign corporation, unauthorized to do business under the constitution and laws of this state, is bad, where the answer also discloses that the original payee was an Oklahoma corporation, and as such by the terms of the note required to construct a road from the present terminus of its line in the Indian Territory, to which point it had been constructed by plaintiff, an Arkansas corporation, to the City of Guthrie, Oklahoma, and had since the execution of said note sold out and conveyed to the Arkansas corporation all its right, title and interest in and to said road together with all contracts and franchises connected therewith; and a demurrer thereto was properly sustained. 2. An answer setting up a plea in bar to a suit on a promissory note given in aid of the construction of plaintiff's line of road, which alleges that prior to the execution of the note the payee, then engaged in building a railroad in a westerly direction from a given point in another state through the Indian Territory and in general direction of Guthrie, Oklahoma, determined to build said road from its then terminus in the Indian Territory to said city, and on that date, unknown to defendant and the citizens of said city, entered into a contract for its construction; that without disclosing that determination said railroad company by and through its agents and representatives afterward caused a public meeting of the citizens of said cfty to be held, and then and there submitted to them and others interested in a proposition to extend its linc of road from its then terminus in the Ind ian Territory to said city and have the same in operation in eighteen months, provided they would raise a bonus of fifty thousand dollars within thirty days in the form of promissory notes satisfactory to the payee, to be turned over to it; representing that another city was a strong competitor for the road; that unless satisfactory arrangements were made with it the road would be diverted to some other point, but if the terms concerning said bonus were complied with, it would build its road to Guthrie; that there was a feeling of rivalry existing between the two cities which was well known at that time to said railroad company; that said representations were made for the purpose of securing said bonus, and were false and deceptive, and known to be such by the payee, and were intended to, and did, deceive said citizens, including the defendant, and that the note sued on was executed on the strength of such deception; states facts sufficient to constitute a plea in bar of a recovery on said note on the ground of fraud, and a demurrer thereto was improperly sustained. 3. A railroad company for the purpose of aiding in the construction of its line of road, may accept and enforce an obligation payable to it, conditioned that the note shall become due and payable when the line of road is built and put operation to point named therein, and such note is not void as against public policy. 4. One who is not privy to a contract is not bound thereby and can claim no benefit of any of its favorable provisions. Syllabus by the Court. T. C. Whitley, C. G. Horner, Devereux & Hildreth, Attorneys for Plaintiff in error. Dale & Bierer, and Benj. F. Hegler, Attorneys for Defendant in error. STATEMENT OF FACTS. On November 26, 1907, the Ft. Smith & Western Railroad Company, defendant in error, plaintiff below, sued O. P. Cooper, plaintiff in error, defendant below, in the County Court of Logan County, in the following promissory note: "$250. Guthrie, O. T., Jan. 5, 1902. The undersigned promise to pay to the order of Ft. Smith & Western Railroad Company, Two Hundred and Fifty Dollars, at the office of said Company in Guthrie, Oklahoma. Provided, always, that this note becomes due and payable when said Railway Company shall have in operation a line of railroad from the present terminus of its line in the Indian Territory to the City of Guthrie, Oklahoma Territory. Endorsed: (Signed) O. P. Cooper." ,Ft. Smith & Western R. R. Co., A. C. Dustin, Treas. Pay any Bank, Banker or Trust Co., or order, The Federal Trust Co., Cleveland, O. Geo. F. Clewell, Sec'y & Treas. Without recourse upon us pay to Fort Smith and Western Railroad Company, or order. THE FEDERAL TRUST CO. Secretary & Treasurer.' the same being one of many, aggregating some fifty thousand dollars, given by various citizens of Guthrie in aid of the building of the railroad of defendant in error. On December 6, 1907, defendant filed answer, and afterwards an amendment thereto, which was demurred to by defendant in error, and sustained; and plaintiff in error electing to stand on his answer, judgment was rendered in favor of defendant in error and against plaintiff in error for the amount of said note with interest thereon from the date of its execution, from which said judgment plaintiff in error has prosecuted an appeal to this court. Opinion of the Court by TURNER, J.: The answer sets up various defenses to said note, the first of which is that the defendant in error (hereafter called plaintiff) "is now and was at the time said notes were given and at the time this action was instituted, and has been continuously a foreign corporation, created and organized under the laws of the State of Arkansas," and has failed to comply with the law as laid down in Wilson's Revised and Annotated Statutes of Oklahoma, which provides: Section 1225. No corporation created or organized under the laws of any other state or territory shall transact any business within this territory, or acquire, hold, and dispose of property, real, personal or mixed, within this territory, until such corporation shall have filed in the office of the Secretary of the Territory, a duly authenticated copy of its charter or articles of incorporation, and shall have complied with the provisions of this Article." Section 1227. "Such corporation shall appoint an agent, who shall reside at some accessible point in this territory, in the county where the principal business of said corporation shall be carried on, or at some other place in said territory, if such corporation has no principal place of business herein, duly authorized to accept service of process, and upon whom service of process may be made in any action in which said corporation may be a party; and that any such action may be brought in the county where such agent resides or in any county in which the business, or any part of it, out of which said action arose, was transacted; and service upon such agent shall be taken and held as due service upon such corporation. A duly authenticated copy of the appointment or commission of such agent shall be filed in the office of the Secretary of the Territory and Register of Deeds of the County where said agent resides, and a certified copy thereof by the Secretary or Register of Deeds shall be conclusive evidence of the appointment and authority of such agent." And with Sections 43 and 44 of Article 9 of the Constitutionwhich read: Section 43. "No corporation, foreign or domestic shall be permitted to do business in this state without first filing in the office of the Corporation Commission a list of its stockholders, officers, and directors, with the residence and postoffice address of, and the amount of stock held by each. And every foreign corporation shall, before being licensed to do business in the state, designate an agent residing in the State, and service of summons or legal notice may be had on such designated agent and such other agents as now are or may hereafter be provided for by law. Suit may be maintained against a foreign corporation in the county where an agent of such corporation may be found, or in the county of the residence of plaintiff, or in the county where the cause of action may arise.” Section 44. "No foreign corporation shall be authorized to carry on in this state any business which a domestic corporation is prohibited from doing, or be relieved from compliance with any of the requirements made of a similar domestic corporation by the Constitution or laws of the State. Nothing in this article, however, shall restrict or limit the power of the legislature to impose conditions under which foreign corpora tions may be licensed to do business in this State." As the demurrer admits that plaintiff has so failed to comply with the law, it would seem (but upon this we |