250 OCTOBER TERM, 1907. Opinion of the Cou?t. 209 U.S. had knowledge of the pendency of the suit or appeared in it, bring her within the terms of the undertaking. That is pre- cisely the measure of protection which the law ought to give, and by the statute does give, to one against whom, without notice and hearing, an order of this kind is made. The appcli, nts ai]eged various exceptions to the auditor's report, which are directed to the findings of facts, upon which the liability was based and of the amount of damages, and here, apparently, argue those exceptions on the theory that this court is at .liberty to,consider the evidence d? novo, weigh and balance it, and draw'such inferences and conclusions as seem proper. But this theory overlooks the proper function of an auditor, which was correctly appreciated by the court below. The find- ings should net'be set aside unless it is shown that there has been an error in law or a conclusion of fact unwarranted by the evidence. It is enough to say that' there was evidence which supported the findings of fact of the auditor and his assessment of damages. Nor does it appear that the auditor committed any error of law. His report shows the following facts, briefly stated: It was the habit of Mrs. Munn to occupy her house during the late autumn, the winter and the early spring, and to llve elsewhere during the remainder of the year. This was the common season of occupancy in Washington of houses of this character. Shc intended to occupy her house during the season of 1902 and 1903, but was prevcnted from doing so by the wrongful use of the restraining order. The addition which, if the work had not been stopped, would havc been completed by November 1, was not completed until April, and could not have been completed, if reasonable speed had been used, before March. In the mcantimc the house, some of whose exterior walls had bccn rcmoved, was practically uninhabitable. Shel- ter could doubtless havc been found in some of the rooms which could have been closed and warmed. But the owner was entitled to a house which could be occupied as a whole and was available for usc as a home for herself ami her family. This was denied to her by the defendants' wrongful act. We
�
