*1 City nounced Randall, ARNOLD, C.J., GIBSON, Tulsa v. JOHN- supra, as follows: SON, WELCH, JJ., dissent. “When a master seeks to defend against negligence of his servant theory the servant has GRILL CROSSTOWN et al. v. person, loaned to STATE a third who was master, ques- time INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION. presented tion of fact is for determina- jury upon tion of proper instruc- tions.” 229 P. 2d 573. opinion, of that quoted from 39 C.J. 1274 as follows: “ escape liability ‘To original resign master must full control of servant being, the time it not sufficient partially the servant under the control person; of a third necessary it distinguish between authoritative mere direction and control and suggestions as to details or the necessary cooperation where the work part larger operation. furnished is of a A servant of one does not become the servant of another for whom performed merely the work is because points the latter servant, out the work to the gives signals or calling him activity, gives service into him di- as to

rections the details of the work ” doing and the manner of it.’ expressed The same idea has been Jur., 35 Am. Servant, Master

p. 971, as follows: escape liability, “To original mas- ter resigned must have the full control being; servant for the time it is not par- sufficient the servant was tially under the control of another. If he does not surrender full control over Disney, Houston, Klein & Melone and servant, he remains liable for his Henry Kolbus, Tulsa, petitioners. negligence during the time he acts for person to whom he is loaned.” Ward, Jr., Tulsa, John L. and Mac A careful review of all of the evi- Williamson, Atty. respond- Gen., for dence convinces us that the trial court ents. justified submitting was the loaned- DAVISON, appears In this case it questiori jury. servant to the No ex- Wesley Breedlove, herein, ceptions urged court’s as a cook structions. jury The verdict of the in a operated by restaurant owned and supported by competent evidence, and Dale McCollum McGinniss, and Joe judgment based thereon is there- partnership doing business as Cross- fore affirmed. Grill, town petition- and referred to as CORN, ers herein. On the March, 18th DAVISON, while in the *2 ployer respondent, policy of his em- carried a in the course and of Mercury slipped of insurance with Paul In- ployment, respondent and fell St. demnity Company injury stip- exposed pipe causing as has to an by attorneys; ulated their a and as a result that as head and back his respondent totally injury, result of temporarily such now disabled. is thereof temporarily totally April, he filed disabled and has On the of 21st injury been since the compensation date of for under the less a claim 5-day waiting period July Compensation the Act before Workmen’s respondent and compen- awarded the State Industrial Commission. accordingly. sation upon compensation Petitioners resist bring ground respondent, Petitioners the that at the time the case to this to review injury, en- such award. he sustained his was not gaged employment in an defined as It is their contention that the 1947 by Compen- hazardous the Workmen’s upon Act relied in unconstitutional Act, sation 85 O. S. 1941 §2. entirety. They its contend that the Act equal protection denies them the of Respondent recovery upon relies for the law in equal pro- violation of the Legislative the Act of S. L. tection clause of both the State and page 626, especially and 2 section They rely Federal solely Constitutions. thereof, the same 85 O. 1947 S. on this contention to vacate the order. Supp. §65.2, pro- which, substance, in employer vides that an and insurance We have heretofore decided such con- any employee carrier who schedules as adversely tention to them. National person employed by employer the for Bldg, Bank of Tulsa et al. v. Gold- purpose paying collecting of smith, 204 Okla. premium, surance and who receives case, holding that after section 1 any premium upon and collects such question of the Act in unconstitutional policy covering insurance such em- provisions and that of the Act ployee employment, on the basis of his severable, are we further held that sec- estopped deny shall be that such 2 tions and 3 thereof are not uncon- employee in a hazardous stitutional and that employment subject by to and covered thereby insurance carrier are not Compensation Workmen’s Act. equal protection denied the of law with- meaning in the of the State and Federal petitioners It had Constitutions. policy of insurance with St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Company, a cor- What is there said is decisive of the poration, which was in force question presented. here time of the accident which Award sustained. respondent’s salary was used in com- puting premium collected. The com- WELCH, CORN, HALLEY, mission, substance, in found: On March JOHNSON, J., O’NEAL, was in the by concurs reason of stare decisis. AR- subject of to and covered NOLD, C.J., LUTTRELL, provisions Com- Workmen’s GIBSON, J., dissent. pensation Law, as amended House 234, duly (specially Legis- Bill concurring). No. enacted opinion lature of in the State of this case Oklahoma is based on of and on the decision of said date sus- this court in National personal injury Building tained Bank of Goldsmith, an accidental Tulsa v. 204 arising Okla. 226 out of ir P. 2d 916. the course of his I dissent- employment case, my ed in causing injury an reason to his dis- whole; sent I petitioner, think House Bill as a em- No. 234

334 Legislature of is unconstitu- Riley Smith, Hunt L. Keith entirety. majority of in its tional Jay, appellants. provisions of the act held the and 3 Sections are severable Frieden L. Machesney, Atty., Co. Although I still am constitutional. County, Jay, Delaware and Hurst & opinion the act is unconstitutional Hurst, Tulsa, appellees. holding ma- entirety, its jority Goldsmith of the court May 5, 1950, V.C.J. On law; therefore, I board of case is now the commissioners Delaware opinion in this case. entered an cur order can- vassing the results of a stock law elec- *3 tion held in 2, stock district No. Dela- county, ware 29, on 1950, and approving the election. From or- this In re ELECTION SPECIAL IN STOCK der certain district, residents feel- 2, DIST. NO. DELAWARE COUNTY. ing aggrieved, appealed themselves the district county, of Delaware August 2, 1950, on the district court approved and affirmed the order of county the board of commissioners. The protesting parties appeal. facts were court, trial and the substantial facts are undisputed. parties agreed stock election, law which was conceded- ly valid, was held in the district on 1, March 1947. Thereafter, July 2, 1949, another stock law election was held in district No. and thereafter a third election was held on November appeal 1949. An was taken to the district court from approving the order the election held on November and on that appeal, March the trial court held that both elections during year held to wit: one held July, 1949, and the one in November, held 1949, were invalid and void as violative of 4 O. S. 1941 §111, pursuant authority ferred 19 O.S. remanded the matter the board of com- missioners with directions to reconsider petition the last for an election voters of stock district No. dated October they and if found that petition said contained the names signatures per of 25 cent legal voters of district, then to call an- special other immediately election meeting next board, giving required notice as by law. These direc- complied tions were with