The intervener being present, the mandatory provision of section 582, supra, was not violated. Although the action of the court may be considered to have been irregular, the lawyer of the defendant not having been notified and also given the opportunity to be present with his client at the time the additional and favorable instruction was given, the judgment should not be set aside because the action of the court in this respect was harmless. See 22 O. S. 1941 § 1068; Lookabaugh v. Bowmaker, 21 Okla. 489, 96 P. 651; Smittle v. Yadon Inv. Co., 154 Okla. 37, 6 P.2d 818; Potter v. Bond, 98 Okla. 135, 224 P. 537; Smith v. Pulaski Oil Co., 88 Okla. 47, 211 P. 1047; Foreman v. Henry, 87 Okla. 272, 210 P. 1026; Creek Coal Mining Co. v. Paprotta, 73 Okla. 119, 175 P. 235; Chicago, R.I. P. Ry. Co. v. Johnson, 25 Okla. 760, 107 P. 662; Tischer v. Arrington, 193 Okla. 584, 146 P.2d 121; 39 Am. Jur. § 69, p. 84; 12 O. S. 1941 § 78; Grooms v. Johnson, 192 Okla. 527, 138 P.2d 98; Wilson v. Holmes, 185 Okla. 239, 91 P.2d 85; and Mannford State Bank v. Arnold, 105 Okla. 131, 221 P. 76. Affirmed.
Here, if there was error, it was in favor rather than against the plaintiff. It permitted a verdict and judgment in their favor as against the estate of Shelton Bush, to which plaintiffs claim they were not entitled. Chicago, R.I. P. R. Co. v. Johnson, 25 Okla. 760, 107 P. 662; Foreman v. Henry, 87 Okla. 272, 210 P. 1026; Smith v. Pulaski Oil Co., 88 Okla. 47, 211 P. 1047. Finally, it is contended that the court erred in admitting in evidence a contract in writing between plaintiff T.E. Green and Leotis Altizer, administrator of the estate of Shelton Bush, relating to the sale of the land in question by said administrator to plaintiff Green.
This court has long followed the rule that a party cannot complain of an instruction more favorable to him than that to which he is entitled. Chicago, R.I. P. Ry. Co. v. Johnson, 25 Okla. 760, 107 P. 662, 27 L. R. A. (N. S.) 879; Creek Coal Mining Co. v. Paprotta, 73 Okla. 119, 175 P. 235; Foreman v. Henry, 87 Okla. 272, 210 P. 1026; Smith v. Pulaski Oil Co., 88 Okla. 47, 211 P. 1047; Potter v. Bond, 98 Okla. 135, 224 P. 537; Hurt v. Paredes, 115 Okla. 139, 241 P. 772; Liberty Nat. Bank of Pawhuska v. Exendine, 156 Okla. 26, 11 P.2d 154. Therefore, finding that the instructions requested on behalf of the defendant are objectionable, and that the instructions given were substantially correct, and that any deficiency, therein was harmless error, we are of the opinion that the defendant presents no ground for reversal with reference to the instruction of the jury.