Black, Sivalls & Bryson v. Farrell, 1928 OK 269, 268 P. 276, 277-78. Coussens v. Gilmore, 1966 OK 12, 410 P.2d 879, 883. ¶23 Berkson also urges as error the form of the two orders was not proper because they failed to state whether Berkson could amend his petition.

The circumstances surrounding the transaction control the application of the rule rather than the form resulting from the transaction. Coussens v. Gilmore, Okla., 410 P.2d 879; Holden Land Live Stock Co. v. Interstate Trading Co., 87 Kan. 221, 123 P. 733, L.R.A. 1915B, 492. The transaction from which the challenged mineral deed emerged cannot be treated as a separate, distinct and subsequent sale, as distinguished from a contract which is merely collateral to the making of a renewal loan.