Opinion by

J. C. Denton and J. H. Keith were counsel for plaintiff, Willie Claggett, in the trial court. The plaintiff’s case was ably briefed and argued on its merits in this court by J, C. Denton as counsel. However, we find a motion to dismiss defendant’s appeal filed later by another attorney on the ground that the case-made is incomplete. It appears that the record, being voluminous, the case-made was prepared in two volumes, Nos. 1 .and 2. For some reason No. 2 could not be found in the files at the time the motion was made, but afterwards it appeared. The record in this court shows it was duly filed. The appeal was regularly taken. The motion to dismiss is overruled, and this case will be determined upon the re: ord and the briefs originally filed.

This case involves the same transaction and practically the same facts as No. 6754. Alfred Hallam et al. v. Rose E. Bailey, 66 Okla. 46, 166 Pac. 874, in which case opinion has just been rendered by this court affirming the judgment. This case and No. 6752, 66 Okla. 53, 166 Pac. 880, No. 6753, 66 Okla. 52, 166 Pac. 879, No. 6754, 66 Okla. 46, 166 Pac. 874, and No. 6755, 66 Okla. 52, 166 Pac. 879, though not consolidated, were determined in the court below upon the same evidence so far as applicable to the respective cases. The only substantial difference as to the facts in this ease and the facts in the other cases is thar the plaintiff, Willie Olaggett, received $3,800 from Fred D. Bailey in connection with the land deal between Charles 0. Olaggett and the Crystal Lake Distillery Company. The trial court finds that the defendants did not furnish this money, but that the money belonged to Bailey, and rendered judgment for plaintiff as prayed for, but made order requiring the plaintiff to deposit the sum of $3,800 in the registry of tne court to be held for one year in order to protect the bondsmen of Charles C. Claggett in case suit was filed against such bondsmen; no suit-being filed in one year, the money to be paid to Fred D. Bailey, we find that the trial court was correct in holding that this money belonged to Fred D. Bailey. The power of the court to make the order mentioned is not presented in the appeal, and we express no opinion on that question. For the reason that such portion of the court’s judgment if not complained of, and for the further reason that the issues raised and the facts in the case are substantially the same as in No. 6754, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.