Barry v. Bartis

1. The master had no authority to make an order dismissing the plaintiffs’ bill and hence his denial of the defendants’ motions was technically correct, but these motions were apparently designed to raise the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a decree for the plaintiff, and it has been assumed by both parties that they were adequate for that purpose. The question has therefore been considered.

The deed here involved was dated January 5, 1918, but was not recorded until July 12, 1918, the day after the plaintiffs’ first execution was filed in the registry of deeds.

There was…