A promise by the conductor to waken the passenger is a personal undertaking. 4 R. C. L. 1087; Southern R. Co. v. Kendrick, 40 Miss. 374, 90 Am. Dec. 332; N. O. R. Co. v. Statham, 42 Miss. 607, 97 Am. Dec. 478; Nunn v. Ga. R. Co., 71 Ga. 710, 51 Am. Rep. 284; Sevier v. Vicksburg R. Co., 61 Miss. 8, 48 Am. Rep. 74; Mo. R. Co. v. Kendrick (Tex.Civ.App.) 32 S.W. 42; S. A. L. v. Rainey, 122 Ga. 307, 50 S.E. 88, 106 Am. St. Rep. 134, 2 Ann. Cas. 675; Hill v. New, 88 Okl. 208, 212 P. 422; Nichols v. Chicago R. Co., 90 Mich. 203, 51 N.W. 364; St. L. R. Co. v. McCullough (Tex.Civ.App.) 33 S.W. 285; Texas R. Co. v. Alexander (Tex.Civ.App.) 30 S.W. 1113. The verdict was excessive.

After a careful consideration of the matter, this court has reached the conclusion that the liability, if any, in this case is governed by the law of Oklahoma, where the negligence of appellant, if any, occurred, and not by the law of the State of Arkansas. Conceding, for the purposes of this case, that Mrs. Phillips had no notice of the necessity to change cars at Spiro, and conceding, which we do not decide, that the injury to Lorena occurred in the manner claimed, and that the negligence of appellant was the proximate cause of the injury, still we are of the opinion that, under the law of Oklahoma, as announced in the case of Hill v. New, 88 Okla. 208, 212 P. 422, there is no liability in this case, and the lower court erred in refusing to direct a verdict for appellant. This case was decided in 1923, and seems to be the first case on the subject in that court. No other subsequent cases in that court have been cited by counsel, and our search has not disclosed any additional cases thereon. The facts in that case and the holding of the court, quoting from the opinion in that case, are as follows: