authorized to give information, and which relate only to a past transaction, are hearsay.88

Where two persons speaking different languages employ an interpreter to translate their conversations relative to a business transaction, admissions or statements made by one to the other. through the interpreter, are not hearsay, and the party to whom they are made may testify to them.89

The declarations of an agent are not admissible against his principal when they relate to a past transaction. After the authority of an agent has been revoked, and actual notice of revocation has been given to a party dealing with him, the admissions of such agent thereafter made are not binding on his principal."

88 J. I. Case Plow Works v. Pulsifer, 98 P. 787, 79 Kan. 176. 89 Terrapin v. Barker, 109 P. 931, 26 Okl. 93.

90 Acme Harvester Co. v. Madden, 46 P. 319, 4 Kan. App. 598.

In an action against principals for damages caused by the alleged negligence of their agent, declarations of the agent made two hours after the acci dent are mere hearsay, and not admissible to show negligence. Dodge v. Childs, 16 P. 815, 38 Kan. 526.

A barn was destroyed by fire originating on a neighboring ranch, whose manager, with others, discovering the danger, endeavored to save the building. In an action by the barn owner against the ranch owner, evidence that the manager said at the time that he had set out the fire was not competent evidence of such fact; it being a mere narration of a past transaction not relating to any act in which he was engaged at the time, and not being such a spontaneous exclamation that it would be presumed to be true without being sworn to. Johnson v. McLain Inv. Co., 100 P. 52, 79 Kan. 423, 131 Am. St. Rep. 302.

Declarations of the engineer, made two or three hours after the accident at which a watchman was killed, tending to show himself to have been the negligent cause of the accident, when not offered in impeachment of his testimony, are inadmissible. Walker v. O'Connell, 52 P. 894, 59 Kan. 306.

Under the Workmen's Compensation Act, written report as to injury of employé made by another employé regarding the accident, but which shows that the statements are those of the injured employé, is inadmissible as admissions of employer to prove that the accident occurred, or the nature thereof. Lindsay v. Halstead Milling & Elevator Co. (Okl.) 179 P. 360. 91 Lewis v. Metcalf, 36 P. 346, 53 Kan. 219.

Where an agent makes a contract for his principal, and afterwards, in an attempted settlement between the parties, makes statements with reference to the terms of the contract, such statements may be shown in evidence by the adverse party, where parol evidence would be competent. St. Louis WireMill Co. v. Consolidated Barb-Wire Co., 27 P. 118, 46 Kan. 773.

Evidence of a remark of the foreman of the wrecking crew of which plaintiff was a member when injured, that he expected the accident, held admissible, where it tended to show defendant's knowledge of the defect in the ma

§ 1095. Admissions by corporate and municipal officers Declarations and admissions of agent of corporation are competent against corporation where they relate to matters under charge of the agent and in respect to which he is authorized to give information, or where they are made while the agent is acting within the scope of his authority as to transactions depending at the time.92 But a conversation between two employés concerning a

chine which caused the injury. Missouri, O. & G. Ry. Co. v. Davis, 54 Okl. 672, 154 P. 503.

In servant's action for injury, declarations of the master's superintendent made within the scope of his authority in transacting master's business as to relationship of the parties were admissible. Wolverine Oil Co. v. Kingsbury (Okl.) 168 P. 1021.

92 J. I. Case Plow Works v. Pulsifer, 98 P. 787, 79 Kan. 176.

In an action against an incorporated lodge, oral statements of members of its regularly appointed committees and of its officers acting within their authority, are admissible to bind the lodge. Park View Hospital Co. v. Randolph Lodge, No. 216, I. O. O. F., 162 P. 302, 99 Kan. 488.

Cashier's statement, in response to inquiries by bank examiner relating to matters under his charge and as to which he was required to give information to examiner, may be given in evidence against bank. Oklahoma State Bank of Caddo v. Airington (Okl.) 172 P. 462.

Declarations of a bank cashier, to the effect that the bank held the notes sued on for collection, held binding on the bank. Bank of Commerce of Chanute v. Sams, 152 P. 28, 96 Kan. 437. That the cashier was dead when the bank asserted ownership of the note held not to render incompetent testimony as to declarations of the cashier that the bank held the note for collection. Id.

An admission by a foreman in charge of a department that he knew of the defect in a certain appliance is admissible to show knowledge of the corporation. Cudahy Packing Co. v. Hays, 85 P. 811, 74 Kan. 124.

Under Code Civ. Proc. § 384 (Gen. St. 1909, § 5979), reports, telegrams, and memoranda relating to a shipment of cattle, made by trainmen at the time in the line of their duty were competent evidence in a shipper's action for damages to a shipment of cattle. Cockrill v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co., 136 P. 322, 90 Kan. 650.

In an action against a railroad for damages for personal injuries from a defective coupling, reports of its car inspectors as to the condition of the coupling cannot be received in evidence as admissions by defendant of the facts stated in the reports, unless such reports have been adopted in an authoritative way by some official having power to bind the corporation by admissions. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Burks, 96 P. 950, 78 Kan. 515, 18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 231.

In an action against a railroad company for injuries to cattle caused by delay in their transportation, declarations of the trainmen as to matters in the line of their respective duties, and relating to the cause of delay, made at the time and while they were charged with the duty of propelling the

past transaction is incompetent evidence to prove such transaction.93

Admissions of a public officer cannot be given in evidence to bind a municipality of which he is the agent, unless a part of the res gestæ.94

§ 1096. Husband and wife

Act and statements of the husband or wife, in the absence of the other cannot bind the one absent, unless done or made as agent while transacting business, and unless connected therewith as part of the res gestæ.95

train, are admissible against the company. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Consolidated Cattle Co., 52 P. 71, 59 Kan. 111.

Where the chief civil engineer, having charge of the construction and repairs of a railroad, and the division roadmaster, having charge of a division of the road for the purpose of keeping it in proper condition and repair, have a conversation with regard to the condition and safety of a particular portion of the road within that division, the declarations of the chief civil engineer. made in such conversation, may be given in evidence, as against the railroad company, for the purpose of showing that the railroad company had notice of the dangerous condition of a particular portion of the road within that division. St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Weaver, 11 P. 408, 35 Kan. 412, 57 Am. Rep. 176.

93 Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Fray, 12 P. 98, 35 Kan. 700.

Declarations of the section foreman and depot agent of a railroad company, made after a fire, in regard to the condition and management of the engine alleged to have caused it, are mere hearsay. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Osborn, 51 P. 286, 58 Kan. 768.

94 City of Wynnewood v. Cox, 122 P. 528, 31 Okl. 563, Ann. Cas. 1913E, 349. 95 Van Zandt v. Shuyler, 43 P. 295, 2 Kan. App. 118.

Where, in ejectment against a husband and wife by the purchaser at sheriff's sale on execution against the husband, both defendants maintain that the wife was the sole owner, declarations of the husband asserting title are inadmissible against the wife. Madden v. Stegman, 127 P. 524, 88 Kan. 29.

In an action to reform a deed, where the husband, who acted as his wife's agent in making the conveyance (the land belonging to her) is made a defendant with his wife, and is charged with making the false representations which are the ground of the relief sought, his declarations, made after the conveyance, and after his agency had ceased, are admissible as to himself, and a general objection to them by both defendants is not sufficient. Taylor v. Deverell, 23 P. 628, 43 Kan. 469.

In an action to recover damages to property occasioned by a nuisance, evidence of statements made by plaintiff's husband is inadmissible. Stephens v. Gardner Creamery Co., 57 P. 1058, 9 Kan. App. 883.

In an action for divorce, the admissions of plaintiff that he had committed adultery were admissible against himself, when not procured by connivance,

A party's admissions of the fact of his marriage, when deliberately made, are entitled to great weight; but denials are entitled to little weight in opposition.9

Admissions of the wife as to incontinency may be given in evidence by the husband, but should be cautiously received and carefully weighed."7

§ 1097. Principal and surety

Declarations and conduct of the principal become part of the res gestæ and admissible against a surety, where they were made during the transaction of the business for which the surety is bound, but not otherwise. Ordinarily, no act, conduct, declaration, or statement of the principal done or made prior to execution of the obligation can bind the obligors on a surety bond.98

§ 1098. Guardian

A guardian's report is not binding against the ward as an admission, particularly where he has ceased to be the legal representative of the ward.99

§ 1099. Conspirators

Where a party, offering in evidence statements of an alleged conspirator, has made out a prima facie case of conspiracy aliunde, such statements, if made during pendency of the wrongful enterprise,

fraud, coercion, or other improper means. Burk v. Burk, 24 P. 466, 44 Kan. 307, 21 Am. St. Rep. 283.

96 Coleman v. James (Okl.) 169 P. 1064.

97 May v. May, 80 P. 567, 71 Kan. 317.

98 Dietrich v. Dr. Koch Vegetable Tea Co., 56 Okl. 636, 156 P. 188. Where it does not appear that admission of principal was part of the res gestæ, an objection to its admission in action against surety held proper. Cook County Liquor Co. v. Brown, 122 P. 167, 31 Okl. 614.

In an action on a note, where one of the signers set up defense that he was a surety, and that he signed under an agreement that the proceeds of the note were to be paid the maker in money, to buy property which the maker was to mortgage to the surety, and that the payee appropriated the proceeds of the note to an overdraft due by the maker, evidence as to what the maker said to the surety in the absence of the payee was properly excluded. Clingan v. Bank of Commerce, 130 P. 537, 37 Okl. 80.

** In an action by an infant by guardian, continued by next friend on death of guardian, a report of guardian to probate court as to value of property for destruction of which recovery is sought was inadmissible on behalf of defendant. Missouri, O. & G. Ry. Co. v. Gentry, 122 P. 537, 31 Okl. 579.

before its consummation, and in furtherance of its object, are admissible against his coconspirator.1

§ 1100. Preliminary evidence

Before inscriptions or writings can be offered in evidence as admissions, it must be made to appear that the party to be charged made the admission or had notice of the warning.2

The acts and declarations of an agent are admissible against his principal where there is some evidence, though not conclusive, to show the existence of the agency.3

Before statements of an alleged conspirator are admissible against

1 Campbell v. Newton & Driskill, 52 Okl. 518, 152 P. 841.

In a suit for fraud based on an exchange of corporate stock for property, a statement by plaintiff's associate relative to financial condition of the corporation held inadmissible. Phillips v. Mitchell (Okl.) 172 P. 85, writ of error dismissed 248 U. S. 531, 39 S. Ct. 7, 63 L. Ed. 405.

2 Before inscriptions on a card attached to a railway tie, in the words "creosote treated ties," can be offered in evidence as an admission of the truthfulness of their recitals, it must be made to appear that the party to be charged made the admission or had notice of the warning. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co: v. Palmore, 75 P. 509, 68 Kan. 545, 64 L. R. A. 90. 3 Drummond v. Krebs, 55 P. 478, 8 Kan. App. 180.

In an action on a fire insurance policy, evidence of a corrupt offer made by defendant's secretary held admissible without proof of his authority to make such offer. Western Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Williamson-Halsell-Frazier Co., 131 P. 691, 37 Okl. 213.

Evidence that an alleged agent of a corporation acted with the corporation's vice president in superintending the construction of a canal for the corporation for several months, and gave directions for the corporation, which were approved by the officers and followed, and that he furnished funds to pay the contractors who constructed the canal, rendered his statements admissible against the corporation. Amazon Irrigating Co. v. Briesen, 41 P. 1116, 1 Kan. App. 758.

In a passenger's action for injuries, held, that it was not error to admit plaintiff's evidence as to what defendant's doctor said when he examined her, without first showing that the doctor in examining her was acting for defendant. Ladd v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 155 P. 943, 97 Kan. 543.

In an action by physicians against a company for services rendered its employé, testimony that the messenger who called for the physicians stated that he had been sent by the president or manager of the company, and that the company would pay for the services, was inadmissible, in the absence of any other evidence showing such messenger to be the agent of the company. Chickasha Cotton Oil Co. v. Lamb & Tyner, 114 P. 333, 28 Okl. 275.

The authority of a person to make representations and promises for another, alleged in an answer, having been denied in a verified reply, and no evidence of such authority having been given nor ratification shown, evidence of the representations and promises received under objection was properly stricken out. Harris & Cole Bros. v. Strickler, 120 P. 343, 86 Kan. 266.