Page:United States Reports, Volume 209.djvu/305

 o9 U. 8. Oplnion o/th Oourt. be stated, however, that prior to the ruling iust quoted it had been shown that within six weeks after the injury, and while te work of construction was still in progress, the partnership enveyed all its interest to the corporatinn the two members d the partnership of McCabe & Steen taking 96 per cent of the corporate stock. This transfer was of so little significance that it was unknown to its counsel at the time he filed the answer, and from his statement he evidently did not care to pros any defense on that ground. The Oklahoma statute provides: "The court, in every stage of action, mst disregard any error or defect in the pleadings or proeeedins which doe no affect the substantial rights of the adverse party; and no iudgment shall be reversed or affected by re,on of such error or defect." Section 146, art. 8, c. 66, Wilson's Ann. Star. With reference to these several matters thus grouped to- ther we are of opinion that the Oklahoma statute we have just quoted sufficiently answers any claim of error. The liti- gation proceeded upon the theory that the corporation was the real party in interest, and while the partnership and the corporation were not identical, yet the partners were substan- tially the corporation, and the change in organization did not materially affect the rights of the plaintiff. Evidently, for business convenience, the partners concluded to organize as a corporation, and yet they took the bulk of the stock in their own names. They were practically the owners, and it does not appear that there was any change in the manner of doing business or in the relations of the employer to the employ&. To hold, especially after this admission of counsel and his failure to offer any further testimony on. the subject, that the substantial rights of the plaintiff were affected by any of these matters would be sacrificing substance to form. The objec- tions were properly disregarded by the Oklahoma courts, both trial and supreme. While the defendant asked several instructions the excep- tion taken was not to the ruling on each instruction separately, but to them as an entirety. This 'plainly was insufficient.

�