In this connection the order of restraint purports to be a temporary restraining order, and plaintiffs recognize it as such. No bond was required by the court, or filed. In Ex parte Grimes, 20 Okla. 446, 94 P. 668, and in Offutt v. Wagoner, 30 Okla. 458, 120 P. 1018, this court held that no bond is, by statute (12 O.S. 1961, Sec. 1384)[ 12-1384], required on the issuance of a temporary restraining order, but that it is the better practice to require one. In Chicago, R.I. P. Ry. Co. v. Cimarron Tp., 68 Okla. 7, 170 P. 909, and in Callaway v. Sparks, 184 Okla. 569, 89 P.2d 275, we held in effect that attorney fees are not recoverable in an action for damages resulting from the wrongful issuance of a temporary restraining order unless a bond has been executed which so provides. Our attention is invited to Central Oil Drilling Co. v. Wilson, 191 Okla. 91, 127 P.2d 162, and Prager's Paris Fashion v. Seidenbach, 113 Okla. 271, 242 P. 260.

No bond is by the statute required on the issuance of a temporary restraining order, although many authorities hold that it is a better practice to require it." See, also, Offutt v. Wagoner et al., 30 Okla. 458, 120 P. 1018. It is evident that the restraining order as contemplated by the statute is merely one which shall preserve the present status until a hearing may be had upon the pending application for injunction.

As, under the pleadings, the plaintiff was entitled to recover unless the affirmative defenses of the defendants were sustained, and as no evidence was produced reasonably tending to support such defenses, the court committed error in not peremptorily instructing the jury to return a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in accordance with his request. Stock Exchange Bank v. Williamson, 6 Okla. 348, 50 P. 93; Harrah v. First National Bank, 26 Okla. 620, 110 P. 725; Solts v. Southwestern Cotton Oil Co., 28 Okla. 706, 115 P. 776; Offutt v. Wagoner, 30 Okla. 458 120 P. 1018; Fitzpatrick v. Nations, 30 Okla. 462, 120 P. 1020. The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and this cause remanded, with instructions to grant a new trial and proceed in accordance with this opinion.

2. APPEAL AND ERROR — Pleading — Review — Burden of Showing Prejudice. Same as paragraph 2 of the syllabus in Offutt v. Wagoner, 30 Okla. 458, 120 P. 1018. 3. SAME — Review — Harmless Error. Same as paragraph 4 of the syllabus in Chicago, R.I. P. Ry. Co. v. Bankers' National Bank, 32 Okla. 290, 122 P. 499.

The judgment of the trial court must be reversed for failure to require an undertaking as required by § 1392. Walbridge-Aldinger Co. v. City of Tulsa, supra; Offutt v. Wagoner, 30 Okla. 458, 120 P. 1018 (1911). The Court of Appeals cites no authority which would authorize a judgment for attorney fees on appeal by an appellate court in a case such as this, and we are aware of no such authority.

" Our examination of the case made before us, however, fails to disclose any such exhibit, and in its absence, we cannot rule upon the alleged error in excluding it. See Offutt v. Wagoner, 30 Okla. 458, 120 P. 1018. Defendant also contends that the trial court erred in excluding from the evidence a document marked "Defendant's Exhibit 8", and indicated in the case made to be Walter Shaller's application to register as a voter in Oklahoma County, purportedly subscribed to by him on July 29, 1963, and representing, among other things, his address to be "1703 Carlisle Road", and that his residence in Oklahoma began "April 1, 1962."

"The allowance of amendments to pleadings, before or after judgment, when they do not change substantially the claim or defense, rests in the sound discretion of the court." Alcorn v. Dennis, 25 Okla. 135, 105 P. 1012; City of Shawnee v. Slankard, 29 Okla. 133, 116 P. 803; Herron v. M. Rumley Co., 29 Okla. 317, 116 P. 952; Trower v. Roberts, 30 Okla. 215, 120 P. 617; Offutt v. Wagoner, 30 Okla. 458, 120 P. 1018; Merchants' Planters' Ins. Co. v. Crane, 36 Okla. 160, 128 P. 260; Shawnee-Tecumseh Traction Co. v. Wollard, 54 Okla. 432, 153 P. 1189. Plaintiff assigns as error the overruling of its demurrer to the petition and amended petition.

Re Key, 189 U.S. 84. No bond is required for temporary restraining order. 13 Standard Enc. of Proc. 163, 6168 C.S. Although permissible, Offutt v. Wagoner, (Okla.) 120 P. 1019. Motion for new trial unnecessary to review order made on motion to dissolve injunction.

The question of the giving of a bond was not presented. Certain language used by the court, perhaps, supports our contention. Also, the case of Offutt v. Wagoner, 30 Okla. 458, 120 P. 1018, was an action upon an injunction bond, and the record in that case discloses that the injunction was granted to enjoin the sale of property by a mortgagee, as in the case at bar, but here again the question was not presented. The court seems to have assumed the right to require a bond.

With the record in this condition, the trial court did not commit reversible error in sustaining plaintiff's motion for a directed verdict. Frank H. Harrah Co. v. First Nat. Bank of Tonkawa, 26 Okla. 620, 110 P. 725; Offut v. Wagoner, 30 Okla. 458, 120 P. 1018; Fitzpatrick v. Nations, 30 Okla. 462, 120 P. 1020; Conwill v. Eldredge, 71 Okla. 223, 177 P. 79; Depuy v. Selby, 76 Okla. 307, 185 P. 107. The judgment of the trial court should be in all things affirmed.