any other division of the Commissioners for further investigation and report. The Supreme Court shall, in each cause returned to it by the Commissioners with an opinion, when finally approved by the Court, render such judgment as shall in the judgment of the Court be appropriate and just.

Section 4. The Supreme Court Commissioners may employ, at the expense of the State, such stenographic and clerical help as may be required, "not exceeding six stenographers." The salary of each stenographer shall be One Hundred Dollars per month and shall be paid as is now provided by law for the payment of stenographers for the Justices of the Supreme Court. The State Board of Public Affairs shall provide such rooms, furniture and supplies as may be necessary for the use of said Commission.

Section 5. In each cause hereafter filed in the Supreme Court there shall be taxed in lieu of the fee now provided for filing, indexing and docketing each cause, a docket fee of Twenty-Five ($25.00) Dollars, which shall be collected and recoverable as other costs. The advance payment to the Clerk shall be Forty ($40.00) Dollars instead of Fifteen ($15.00) Dollars as now provided.

Section 6. The Commissioners herein provided for shall be subject to removal at any time by the Governor.

Section 7. It being immediately necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is hereby declared to exist, by reason whereof this Act shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage and approval.

R. L. Williams,

Governor.

RECENT IMPORTANT BANKRUPTCY
DECISIONS.

RECEIVERS VACATING RECEIVERSHIP.

A receivership created by the referee in bankruptcy, without notice to a receiver appointed by the State court and other parties interested, should be vacated, where it does not appear that the assets are in serious danger or that the State receiver is not as competent as the receiver in bankruptcy.. Ingram v. Ingram Dart Lighterage Co., 34 Am. B. R. 622.

APPEAL METHODS OF REVIEW EXCLUSIVEWHEN ORDER ALLOWING CLAIM MAY BE CONSIDERED ON PETITION TO REVISE ORDER CONFIRMING SALE OF HOMESTEAD. Each method of procedure for review of orders in bankruptcy is exclusive of the other.

An order allowing a claim, standing alone, is not reviewable on a petition to revise, but where it appears that this is the only claim of any amount against the estate and was the cause of the bankruptcy proceedings, the court may, in reviewing an order confirming a sale of the homestead, review the order allowing the claim as involved in the order of sale. Matter of Pindel, 34 Am. B. R. 600.

ASSETS WHAT PROPERTY VESTS IN TRUSTEE-CLAIM AGAINST DEBTOR BECOMING VALUABLE AFTER CLOSING ESTATE.

Where a bankrupt duly scheduled as an asset a claim against a debtor and the latter's assignee, and it

appeared that the debtor owned an interest in an insurance policy on the life of a third party, which was of little cash value, and on which the premiums were paid by others than the bankrupt, and the trustee did not abandon the claim, upon the death of the insured after the closing of the bankrupt's estate, the dividend on such claim resulting from the proceeds of the insurance policy belongs to the estate and is not afteracquired property. Matter of Lighthall, 34 Am. B. R. 594.

PARTNERSHIP-DISSOLUTION FOR PURPOSE OF PERMITTING PARTNER TO CLAIM EX

EMPTIONS.

A dissolution of a partnership, with the "sole purpose and object of placing the bankrupt partner * * * in a position to claim his individual exemptions" from the firm property, is fraudulent and ineffectve, as against creditors of the partnership, to pass ownership of the firm property to the bankrupt. Matter of Abrams, 34 Am. B. R. 552.

TRUSTEE-REMOVAL BY REFEREE-APPROVAL BY JUDGE.

An order of a referee in bankruptcy removing a trustee, which has not been affirmed by a judge who, under General Order No. 13, has sole power of removal, is void, and another provision of the order appointing a new trustee, and a subsequent order directing the old trustee to turn over assets must also fall as having no legal foundation. Matter of Berree & Wolf, 34 Am. B. R. 549.

CURRENT DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA.

THE SUPREME COURT.

No. 4397. A. J. Miller et al. v. Oklahoma State Bank of Altus et al. Error from the District Court of Jackson county. Reversed and Remanded. Opinion by Brown, J.

1. It is error for the court to peremptorily instruct a verdict in favor of plaintiff for a specific sum in a case tried by jury where the evidence is conflicting, and upon which the jury might reasonably find against the defendant a less sum than that instructed by the court to be found for the plaintiff.

Sec. 1005, Rev. Laws, 1910, relative to interest which may be charged or collected in this State, includes two conditions : (1) Where a greater rate of interest than ten per cent per annum is charged, reserved or is agreed to be paid for the loan of money, but is not paid; (2) Where such interest is charged and paid.

3. In the case first cited where suit is brought on the note which includes illegal interest charged or agreed to be paid, the maker of the note may, in his answer, set up the unlawful charge or agreement to pay illegal interest, and the plaintiff will not be allowed to recover judgment for any sum, other than the note less double the amount of the interest charged or agreed to be paid, which the law declares forfeited.

4. Where in answer to a petition the defendant makes allegations proper in the answer, which alleges facts upon which affirmative relief may be based, and such affirmative relief is prayed for by such answer, the same will, in the absence of an objection thereto,

be treated as a cross petition, regardless of what name the pleader may apply to it.

5. Where the usurious interest has been paid on a note, for extentions after maturity, in a suit to recover on the note against the maker who paid such interest, he cannot set-off the note sued upon by an amount equal to double the interest so paid by him, his remedy to recover such penalty is by a separate and independent action against the party to whom the usurious interest was paid.

6. So long as this court has jurisdiction over its judgments and its attention is called to an erroneous order or decision, it will correct such error.

SUPREME COURT COMMISSION.

Division No. One.

No. 4498. Homer W. Hurley v. William J. Anicker. Error from Superior Court of Muskogee county. Reversed with Directions. Opinion by Brewer C.

1. A party who has contracted to buy land and has paid money, or done an act in part performance of the agreement, and then stops short and refuses to proceed to its ultimate conclusion, the other party being ready and willing to proceed and fulfill all his stipulations according to the contract, will not be permitted to recover back what he has paid, or for what he has done.

(a) But, where a party has made a payment under a contract to buy land, and has failed to make further payments according to the contract and the contract has been mutually rescinded, such purchaser may recover the money so paid in part performance.

(b) And in such last mentioned case, if the purchaser is responsible for the breach and failure to