delivered the opinion of the court.

No question is made in this record as to the admission or exclusion of testimony. There being no jury the case comes here on appeal, and the only question we can consider is whether the findings of fact sustain the decree. Act of April 7, 1874, c. 80, 18 Stat. 27; Stringfellow v. Cain, 99 U. S. 610; Cannon v. Pratt, 99 U. S. 619; Neslin v. Wells, 104 U. S. 428; Hecht v. Boughton, 105 U. S. 235, 236; Gray v. Howe, 108 U. S. 12; Eilers v. Boatman, 111 U. S. 356; Zeckendorf v. Johnson, 123 U. S. 617; Sturr v. Beck, 133 U. S. 541; Mammoth Min. Co. v. Salt Lake Foundry & Machine Co., 151 U. S. 447.

The order signed in vacation by the several members of the Supreme Court cannot be considered an order of the court. Assuming, however, for the purposes of this case, that, in view of the general language in the opinion of the court, we may take the findings of the master as its statement of facts, we observe that no doubtful question of law is presented for our determination. The master finds .that Metzger was the father of the appellees, and that he owned certain property. These are questions of fact, resting upon testimony, concluded, so far as this court is concerned, by the findings, and into which it is not our privilege to enter.

While under the common law illegitimate children did not inherit from their father, the statutes of New Mexico introduced á new rule.of inheritance (Comp. Laws, New Mexico, 1884, tit. 20, c. 4, sec. 1435, p. 680): “ Natural children, in the absence of legitimate, are heirs to their father’s estate, in preference to the ascendants, and are direct heirs to the mother if she die intestate.” In other words, under this stat *641 ute, there being no legitimate children, illegitimate children inherit.

It appears that on March 19,1875, and while Metzger was living, the mother of these plaintiffs, then minors, in her own right and for the minors, receipted and relinquished all claims against him. Without stopping to consider what was meant by that release, and giving to it all the scope which its language may suggest, we remark that a natural guardian has no power to release the claim of a ward to an inheritance ■without the sanction of some tribunal. Woerner’s American Law of Guardianship, p. 185, and following.

The decree is

Affirmed.