Decision, therefore, depends upon whether the county court had jurisdiction to authorize the expenditure. If the order was a valid one, the guardian and her bondsmen were protected. McDougal v. Kersey, 108 Okla. 231, 236 P. 7. The court in the case of In re Campbell's Guardianship, 169 Okla. 47, 35 P.2d 884, 95 A. L. R. 836, held: "Under section 1267, O. S. 1931 (1260, C. O. S. 1921), where a minor inherits an undivided interest in real estate which, together with the other undivided interests in said real estate, is subject to a blanket lien or liens, the county judge, upon statutory application and showing, may authorize the guardian of said minor to join with the other owners of said real estate in executing a blanket mortgage upon all of said real estate, and to bind his ward's undivided interest, together with the aggregate interest, for the entire indebtedness, where the purpose of executing said mortgage is to pay off or secure a release of the existing blanket lien or liens."

In each of these cases the mortgages authorized to be made were in excess of the indebtedness then upon the property and included personal indebtedness of the guardian. In a recent case decided by this court, In re Campbell's Guardianship, 169 Okla. 47, 35 P.2d 884, facts similar to those in the case now before this court for decision are involved, in the decision by this court in that case, the court makes the distinction between the law as applicable to the facts as they existed in Fowler v. Humphrey Investment Co., supra, and the facts here involved. In the Campbell Case, supra, this court cites with approval the case of First National Bank v. Bangs, 91 Kan. 54, 136 P. 915: