of each respective claim thereto or therein, and persons entitled to distribution thereof, the final determination of the court thereupon shall be final and conclusive in the distribution of said estate, and in regard to the title to all the property of the estate of said deceased. The cost of the proceedings shall be apportioned in the discretion of the court. In any proceeding under this section, the court may appoint an attorney for any minor mentioned in said proceedings, not having a guardian. Nothing in this section contained, shall be construed to exclude the right upon final distribution of any estate, to contest the question of heirship, title or interest in the estate so distributed where the same shall not have been determined under the provisions of this section; but where such questions shall have been litigated under the provisions of this section, the determination thereof, as herein provided, shall be conclusive in the distribution of said estate. This section shall be cumulative and additional to the provisions of law now existing for determining heirship to any deceased person, and it is not intended that this section shall repeal any existing section or sections of the law now existing governing the administration of estates, except such as may be in direct conflict herewith.

Section 13. That all Acts or parts of Acts in conflict with this Act are hereby repealed

Passed by the Senate February 1, 1910.

J. C. Graham, President pro tem of the Senate. Passed by the House March 9, 1910.

Ben. F. Wilson, Speaker of the House.

Approved March 17th, 1910.

C. N. Haskell, Governor.

THE LATEST BANKRUPTCY DECISIONS.

CORPORATIONS-Effect of Bankruptcy Act upon the Right of a Court of Equity to Administer Affairs of Insolvent Corporations.

In the case of In re Edward Ellsworth Co., 23 Am. B. R. 284, it is held that the Bankruptcy Act, 1898, has not superseded the right and power of a court of Equity to take charge of the property of an insolvent corporation for the protection of its stockholders and creditors, marshal the same, recognize and enforce valid liens and priorities, and equitably distribute the surplus proceeds among its creditors.

DEBTS- Provable-"Fixed Liability"-Stipulation in Note for Attorney's Fee.

A stipulation in a note for the payment of a certain sum as attorney's fee for services in collection, does not in some states, create a fixed liability on the part of the debtor, but he is only liable for reasonable compensation for such service, and, in the case of McCabe vs. Patton, 23 Am. B. R. 335, where the maker of the note was adjudicated a bankrupt a few days after judgment was entered upon the said note, the creditor was held not entitled to have the stipulated attorney's fee allowed to him though the same, together with the note, was proved in the bankruptcy proceedings.

ARREST OF BANKRUPT-In Action to Enforce a Non-Dischargeable Judgment-Release on Habeas Cor. pus under Pending Order of Bankruptcy Court Forbidding Arrest on Civil Process.

Where upon the day that a bankrupt was admitted to bail, in a state court, on a criminal charge, an order of the bankruptcy court was in force, forbidding any person from arresting him on civil process until two days

after the conclusion of his attendance at hearings in the bankruptcy court, not counting the time of his imprisonment on the criminal charge, and immediately upon his admission to bail thereon he was arrested upon a warrant issued in an action for false representations commenced when the bankrupt was out of the State, and after to avoid the effect of a decision of the bankruptcy court denying a motion to vacate a stay of proceedings to enforce a non-dischargeable judgment, it is held in United States ex rel. Mansfield v. Flynn, Supt., etc., 23 Am. B. R. 294, that he was entitled to be released on habeas corpus, as the order forbidding his arrest was valid regardless of the dischargeability of the debt in the action for false representation.

DEBTS-Priority of-Debts Due to United States-U. S. Rev. Stat., Sec. 3466-Priority Over Wage-Earners.

It has been held, in Title Guarantee & Surety Co. vs. Guarantee Title & Trust Co., 23 Am. B. R. 340, that in the passage of the Bankruptcy Act, 1898, the Congress did not intend by the use of the word "person" in section 64b (5), relating to the distribution of a bankrupt's estate to restrain, diminish or affect the existing priority given to debts due to the United States under section 3466 of the U. S. R. Stat., which provides that whenever the estate of an insolvent debtor is insufficient to pay all his debts, those due to the United States shall first be satisfied

So it is further held, in that case, that where a surety on the bond of a bankrupt for his faithful performance of a certain contract with the United States pays a judg ment recovered upon the bankrupt's default in performing the contract, the surety under the provisions of section 3468 of the U. S. R. Statutes is entitled to be subrogated to the rights of the United States, and the claim of the surety is entitled to priority over the claims of wage earners given by section 64b (4).

FRAUDULENT Transfers-Suits to Set Aside.

The case of Palmer, Trustee, etc., v. Roginsky, 23 Am. B. R. 358. holds that since the amendment of sections 70e and 23b of the Bankruptcy Act, 1898, the bankruptcy court, unless by the defendant's consent, has no jurisdiction of a suit by a trustee in bankruptcy to set aside an alleged fraudulent transfer of property by the bank. rupt where the right of action depends upon the State law and not upon the Bankruptcy Act, 1898.

CRIMINAL COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA.

MELVIN M. JACOBS, Plaintiff in Error,

V8.

Case No. 265,

THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Defendant in Error.

Rendered April. 21, 1910.

Appeal from District Court of Alfalfa County. Hon. M. C. Garber, Trial Judge.

Dismissed.

1 Where a defendant has been convicted of murder and sentenced to imprisonment for life at hard labor in the State Penitenitary, and perfects an appeal to this court, and while said appeal is pending makes his escape from the custody of the law he thereby waives his right of hav ing said conviction reviewed by this court.

2. The Criminal Court of Appeals will not consider an appeal, unless the defendant is where he can be made to respond to any judgment or order which may be rendered in the case, and where the defendant makes his escape from the custody of the law. or is at large, as a fugitive from justice, this court will on motion dismiss his appeal, (Syllabus by the Court.)

George W. Partridge, for plaintiff in error.

Chas J. West, Att'y-General, and Chas. Moore, Assis't Att'y-Gen, for The State

OPINION of the Court by DOYLE, J.

Melvin M. Jacobs, plaintiff in error, was convicted of murder. His conviction was had upon an indictment returned at March 1909 term of the District Court of the Twentieth Judicial District, held within and for Alfalfa County, where said indictment charged, that he did on

the first day of February 1909, did with malice aforethought kill and murder one Arthur D. Strohl, by shooting him with a pistol. Upon his trial the jury returned a verdict of guilty and assessed the penalty at imprisonment for life, at hard labor in the State Penitentiary.

April 1st, 1909, the court pronounced judgment and sentence in accordance with the verdict. From which judgment and sentence an appeal was taken by fillng in this court petition in error with case-made attached, July 26th, 1909. In the meantime plaintiff in error was committed to the County Jail of Garfield County.

At this the March term of this court said cause was orally argued and submitted on briefs and argument.

On April 4th, 1910, there was filed in the case a motion of the Attorney General on behalf of the State to dismiss the appeal, which motion ommitting the formal parts is as follows:

"Comes now the Attorney general for and upon behalf of the State of Oklahoma, and informs the court, that heretofore to wit: On April 1st, 1910, the plaintiff in error, Melvin M. Jacobs, being confined in the County Jail of Garfield county, Oklahoma, for safe-keeping, awaiting the disposition of his appeal herein, did then and there wilfully and unlawfully effect his escape from said jail by forcibly breaking therefrom, and is now at large, a fugitive from justice, all of which appears from the affidavit of the Sheriff of said Garfield County, the keeper of said jail, and having at the time the lawful custody of the accused, which said affidavit is hereto attached, marked Exhibit "A" and made a part of this motion.

Wherefore, the Attorney General says that under the law and the rulings of this Court, the Plaintiff in Error has forfeited his right to an appeal, and in legal effect has abandoned the same, in that he now refuses to submit. himself to undergo such judgment as may be rendered herein."

Attached to said motion as exhibit "A" is the affidavit of S. C. Campell, Sheriff of Garfield County, the material part of which is as follows: