Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/695

 ETTINQ ». MAEX'S EXECUTOB. 681 �period which has been held sufiScient to disentitle complain- ants from recoveiing their demanda. In regard to fraud, though it is settled that no lapse of time will bar so long as it is concealed, and that neither the statuts nor the principle of analogy will begin to run except from the time the fraud is unkennelled, yet it is equally settled that if there be laches or acquiescence, and unreasonable delay after that event, equity will then apply its usual principles in determining whether or not to grant the relief demanded. It is equally a ruie that, as between a trustee and his cestui que trust, neither the statute, nor the rule of analogy, nor lapse of time will, in general, affeet the right of the beneficiary to redress ; yet equity will in such cases, when the circumstances require it, enforce against the cestui que trust, especially where the rights of third persons are concerned, its own peculiar maxim, vigilantibus et non dormientilms jura suhserviunt; and while there are cases of this class where equity has granted relief after a great length of titne, even 50 years, yet there are others in which it has refused it after only a few months. �Among the cases which have been held not to be affeeted by the statutes of arbitrary limitations, or the rule of analogy to them, are (1) those in which the public convenience requires that there shall be a speedy end of strif e ; (2) others in which some of the principal parties, in transactions sought to be reviewed, are dead and their vouchers lost; (3) others in which the court could not be certain, from lapse of time, that relief, apparently proper, would certainly be just ; (4) others where the disturbance of purchases or transactions acquiesced in for a greater or less time would prejudice the vested rights of third persons. The foUowing are the more important of the cases, falling within the classes which have been named, which have been cited at bar. In Bryan et al. v. Weems, 29 Ala. 423, it was held that the statute of limitations barred a trustee who had neglected to sue for slaves held suhject to a trust during the period of statutory limitation; and that the rights of the cestui que trust were also barred. In Flanders v. Flanders, 23 Ga. 249, which was a suit by the widow of an intestate and a married daughter and husband to set asid& ����