Horwill, J.

1. The plaintiff was a purchaser of an item of land from the first defendant and she seems to have had some difficulty in obtaining possession of the property, which the third defendant claims as his by virtue of long possession. She brought a suit against the first defendant, her vendor, the third defendant, who claimed to have been in enjoyment of the property, and the second defendant, a tenant of the third defendant, for possession of the land and in the alternative for the return of the purchase money with damages.

2. The first defendant was declared ex parte. That meant that the plaintiff was able to obtain the return of the purchase money with which she would have been satisfied. She therefore reported to the Court that she did not press the suit against defendants 2 and 3, and the suit as against them was withdrawn, the obtained merely a decree against the first defendant for the purchase money and damages. Unfortunately for the plaintiff, the first defendant was able to get the ex parte decree set aside on a technical ground. As the first defendant might now be able to satisfy the Court that he had given her a valid title and the plaintiff would not be ab