GIBSON, J. (dissenting). The law announced in the syllabus is contrary to our holding in Frederick Cotton Oil Mfg. Co. v. Clay, 50 Okla. 123, 150 P. 451; Chicago, R.I. P. Ry. Co. v. Brooks, 57 Okla. 163, 156 P. 362; Sanders v. Chicago, R.I. P. Ry. Co., 66 Okla. 313, 169 P. 891; Whitehead Coal Mining Co. v. Winton, 107 Okla. 99, 230 P. 509; White v. McGee, 157 Okla. 204, 11 P.2d 924; Oklahoma City v. Richardson, 180 Okla. 314, 69 P.2d 334; Oklahoma Gas Electric Co. v. Spiva, 183 Okla. 253, 80 P.2d 941. The statute under which this action was brought was taken by us verbatim from the State of Kansas.

This court has consistently held that such failure constitutes reversible error. Frederick Cotton Oil Co. v. Clay (1915) 50 Okla. 123, 150 P. 451; C., R.I. P. Ry. Co. v. Brooks (1915) 57 Okla. 163, 156 P. 362; Sanders v. C., R.I. P. Ry. Co. (1917) 66 Okla. 313, 169 P. 891; Whitehead Coal Co. Winton (1924) 107 Okla. 99, 230 P. 509; White v. McGee (1932) 157 Okla. 204, 11 P.2d 924; Oklahoma City v. Richardson (1937) 180 Okla. 314, P.2d 334. We decline to depart from the rule laid down in those cases.

"The first assignment of error relates to the failure of the plaintiff to prove that there was no administration upon the estate of her husband. See Whitehead, etc., Co. v. Winton, 107 Okla. 99, 230 P. 509; AlkoNak Coal Co. v. Barton, 88 Okla. 212, 212 P. 591; and White v. McGee, 157 Okla. 204, 11 P.2d 924. The rule is well established in this state that the surviving wife must (1) allege, and (2) prove, that there is no administration. The plaintiff pleaded this fact. She admits that she did not prove the fact, but argues, first, that the fact is established by inference.

The first assignment of error relates to the failure of the plaintiff to prove that there was no administration upon the estate of her husband. See Whitehead, etc., Co. v. Winton, 107 Okla. 99, 230 P. 509; Alko-Nak Coal Co. v. Barton, 88 Okla. 212, 212 P. 591; and White v. McGee, 157 Okla. 204, 11 P.2d 924. The rule is well established in this state that the surviving wife must (1) allege, and (2) prove, that there is no administration. The plaintiff pleaded this fact. She admits that she did not prove the fact, but argues, first, that the fact is established by inference.

"In the trial of an action, wherein a surviving mother is seeking to recover damages for the wrongful death of her son, it is error to admit in evidence mortality tables to prove the expectancy of the surviving mother." An examination of the Mid-Co Petroleum Co. v. Allen Case, supra, shows that the doctrine there announced is based entirely on the case of Missouri, O. G. Ry. Co. v. Lee, 73 Okla. 165, 175 P. 367. It is apparent that the Mid-Co Petroleum Co. v. Allen Case, relied on, overlooked the case of Whitehead Coal Mining Co. v. Winton, 107 Okla. 99, 230 P. 509. In the Whitehead Coal Mining Co. v. Winton Case, supra, the court said:

In this contention the defendants are correct. Smith v. Chicago, R.I. P. Ry., 42 Okla. 577, 142 P.2d 398, 399 (syllabus ¶ 6); Missouri, O. G. Ry. v. Lee, 73 Okla. 165, 175 P. 367, 369 (overruled in part on another point by Whitehead Coal Mining Co. v. Winton, 107 Okla. 99, 230 P. 509, 509); St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. v. Hutchison, 117 Okla. 190, 245 P. 891, 893; Baltimore American Ins. Co. v. Cannon, 181 Okla. 244, 73 P.2d 167, 168-69. Damages for the decedent's pain and suffering must be sought in a separate action.