
    MASON v. EVANS.
    No. 5724.
    Opinion Filed November 16, 1915.
    (153 Pac. 133.)
    1. GUARDIAN AND WARD—Power of Guardian—Collection of Note—Release of Mortgage—Order of Court. A guardian who has loaned the money of a ward, evidenced by a promissory note payable to himself as guardian, has power to collect the same, and, if such note is secured by mortgage, to release and discharge the -mortgage, without the intervention of the county court.
    •'2. SAME—Accepting Payment of Note—“Compounding of Debt”— Approval by Judge. Where the guardian accepts in satisfaction of such note the full amount, principal and interest^ for which the makers were then obligated, at time prior to the maturity thereof according to its tenor, such act on the part of the guardian does not constitute a compounding of the debt within the meaning of section 6543, Rev. Daws 1910, nor is the approval thereof by the county judge requisite (following Mason, Guardian, v. Ackley et a!., 52 Okla. 157, 152 Pac. 846).
    (Syllabus by Dudley, C.)
    
      Error from, ,District Court, Muskogee County; R. P. de Graffenried, Judge.
    
    Action by A. J. Mason, guardian of Louisa .Murrell, against S. L. Evans. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error.
    Affirmed.
    
      W. C. Franklin, P. J. Carey, and W. 0. Rittenho%se, for plaintiff in error.
    
      William S. Cochran, for defendant in error.
   Opinion by

DUDLEY, C.

On August 26, 1911, plaintiff in error, plaintiff below, commenced this action in the district court of Muskogee county against the defendant in error, defendant below, upon a promissory note and to foreclose a real estate mortgage given to secure the same. There was judgment for the defendant, from which the plaintiff has appealed.

The principles of law involved in this case were determined adversely to plaintiff’s contention by this court, in an opinion handed down by Bleakmore, C., on November 2, 1915, in the case of A. J. Mason, Guardian of Louisa Murrell, a Minor, v. Levi Ackley and Mary Ackley et al., 52 Okla. 157, 152 Pac. 846. The facts in the two cases are identical, and the principles of law involved are the same.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed, on the authority of the above case.

By the Court: It is so ordered.  