Joseph McKenna

“ This is tantamount to saying that the absence of formal orders by the court must prevail over its essential action. It is clear from the record that the district court considered the cases pending before it at the same time, considered No. 1996 as the complement of No. 1728, regarded the cases in fact as consolidated, and empowered the receiver appointed in 1728 to sell the property and distribute the proceeds as directed by the decree in 1996. ”

“ The trial court found that the appellee was the owner in fee simple of the property, and adjudged that the claim of the appellant and all of the defendants in the question to be 'invalid and groundless.' The decree was affirmed by the supreme court.
The findings of fact of the supreme court are very general. They are only that the appellant had not, at the commencement of the action, any cause of action in respect to the property, and has not now any right, title, or interest therein ”