
    Tizzard v. Fay & Conkey et al.
    1. Practice in Supreme Court: no errors assigned: appeal dismissed. This court cannot entertain an appeal where no errors are assigned, and in such case the appeal must be dismissed.
    
      Appeal from Des Moines Circuit Court.
    
    Wednesday, April 9.
    Fay & Conkey, a partnership doing business in Illinois, failed in January, 1883. They confessed judgment in the circuit court of the United States for the northern district of Illinois in favor of certain creditors for a large amount. On the same day the judgments were confessed, a creditors’ bill was filed in said court by the judgment creditors, and an order was made appointing 'Bradford Hancock a receiver of the property of Fay & Conkey, and, under an order of the said court, the said partnership assigned all of its property to the receiver.
    The plaintiff, Tizzard, being a resident of this state, commenced an action against Fay & Conkey, and attached by garnishment certain open accounts due to Fay & Conkey from residents of this state. Hancock, the receiver, intervened in the action, and by his petition of intervention claimed that he was entitled to recover all debts due to Fay & Conkey, by reason of the receivership and the assignment to him. There was a demurrer to the petition of intervention, which was sustained, and the intervenor appeals.
    
      D; M. (& 8. M. Hammach, for appellants.
    
      A. M. Antrobus and T. G. Gatlett, for appellee.
   Rothrock, Ch. J.

The appellant has not made and filed an assignment of errors. The appellee claims that the cause should be dismised for this reason. The claim is well founded. We cannot entertain the appeal unless errors are assigned. Code, § § 3183, 3207.

Appeal Dismissed.  