O'Neil

This action was brought to dissolve the partnership existing between the plaintiff and the defendant, to have a receiver appointed,, the partnership property sold, and the debts paid. On the eighteenth day of November, 1901, after trial, the court found the allegations of the complaint to be true, made its decree dissolving the partnership, and settling the accounts of the copartners and the account of the receiver. This appeal is from the judgment. It is not claimed that the judgment is not the legal conclusion from the facts found, nor is it claimed that the findings are not supported by the evidence. The sole errors relied upon are, that the court never duly appointed the receiver in the action, that it did not acquire jurisdiction to .order the sale of a certain leasehold interest, and that no disposition was ever made of defendant’s demurrer to the complaint. As to the first two propositions, there is no bill of exceptions and no statement in the record, and therefore we cannot say as to the correctness of the contentions of de *162 fendants. "We must presume in favor of the regularity of the proceedings of the lower court. If there was a receiver, we must presume that he was…