This case came on to be heard on the record and briefs and oral argument of counsel;
And it appearing that the findings of fact made by the District Court are supported by the record; that no compensable service was performed by the appellant to justify the so-called “commission” in connection with the mortgage loan involved in the trustee’s petition to sell real estate; and that the loan was usurious within the purview of Sections 8303 and 8306, Ohio General Code; but that the numerous other loans made by appellee to appellant had been paid and cancelled on or before July 31, 1947 and do not constitute a continuing transaction between the parties;
It is ordered that the judgment be and it hereby is affirmed for the reasons stated in the memorandum opinion of the District Court. In re Proteau, 110 F.S.upp. 904.