Case ID: mass_296/html/0029-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the Court.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Fannie S. Polep, administratrix, vs. Joseph P. Manning & another.
    Suffolk.
    November 5, 1936.
    November 9, 1936.
    Present: Rugg, C.J., Field, Donahue, & Qua, JJ.
    
      Equity Pleading and Practice, Master: findings; Appeal.
    A decree dismissing a bill in equity, after confirmation of the report of a master containing no report of evidence and findings adverse to the plaintiff which were clear and not contradictory, was affirmed.
    Bill in equity, filed in the Superior Court on May 14, 1934, and afterwards amended.
    After reference to and report by a master, the suit was heard by Swift, J., by whose order there were entered an interlocutory decree overruling exceptions to the master’s report and confirming the report, and a final decree dismissing the bill. The plaintiff appealed.
    
      F. S. Polep, pro se.
    
    
      S. B. LeVine, for the defendants.
   By the Court.

This is a suit in equity whereby the plaintiff seeks an accounting, discovery and general relief. The bill of complaint sets forth transactions between the plaintiff’s intestate and the defendants and charges that large indebtedness is due from them to his estate. The case was referred to a master under a rule which required him to find the facts and report his findings to the court. The evidence is not reported. Therefore the findings of fact made by the master must be accepted as true. Glover v. Waltham Laundry Co. 235 Mass. 330, 334. The findings are not inconsistent or contradictory or plainly wrong. The report of the master is straightforward and unequivocal. As to the essential allegations of the bill the findings are all adverse to the plaintiff. It would be vain to recount the facts because they present no question of law. A decree was entered dismissing the bill. There is no ground in law for reversing that decree. O’Brien v. Gove, 208 Mass. 325. Lovell v. Commonwealth Thread Co. Inc. 280 Mass. 243, 246. Birch v. Arnold & Sears, Inc. 288 Mass. 125, 136.

Decree affirmed with costs.