Chapman

The above-entitled actions were consolidated and tried as one, but the court in deciding, entered separate findings, judgments and decrees.

On appeal from the judgment, or judgments, so entered, the supreme court rendered two opinions, and it will be necessary to quote from each at some length in order to explain the question here presented for decision. In the main opinion filed April 7, 1900, the opinion in department was expressly approved and made a part of the opinion in bank, and we quote from the decision therein as follows: “It is to be remembered that while this was originally a simple action by Chapman against Hughes for an accounting, it subsequently became complicated by supplemental pleadings and the addition of new parties defendant. Of these, one was the defendant E. W. Chapman, against whom Hughes was seeking an accounting, and others were grantees and transferees of parts of the land and of mortgages, and of mortgage notes.

Upon a rehearing touching the single proposition of the validity of the deed from Thomas E. to Matilda B. Hughes, the court said: “To the end, therefore, that the record in this case, or in these cases, may he free from uncertainty, it is…