Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/697

 BTTINO V. UABX'S BXEOCTOB. 688 �the profits made by deceased on the resale, claîming that he was acting as agent of the county; but the court held that, if the county ever had a cause of action, it had been guilty of Buch laches as made it doubïful if this suit could be main- tained. The court say: "Under such circumstances, the laches must, of itself, be held fatal, for it would be to assert a doctrine to the last degree hazardous to say that a complain- ant, with fuU knowledge of ail the facts on which he relies, can lie quietly until death cornes to his -assistance, and puts a seal of perpetuai silence upon the lips of his adversary." �In Athinson v. Rohinson, 9 Leigh, 393, it was held thatevery claimant who asks relief of equity ought to exhibit hiS claim within a reasonable time, so that, in giving him a decree, the court may not do injustice to the defendant. �In Robertson v. Read, 17 Grat. 544, where there had been a settlement between partners in 181 9, and transactions in pur- suance of the settlement in 1820, and in subsequent years down to 1831, and suit was brought in 1834 for an account, and claiming money by the administrator of one of the partners who had died against the other partners who were living, it was held that a claim, probably just originally, must be rejected and disallowed in consequence of its staleness, and of the proba- ble impossibility, from the lapse of time and the death of par- ties, of ascertaining the facts of the case and doing justice, and also because it might reasonably be presumed thàt the said claim had been abandoned or satisfied. �In Harrison V. Gibson, 23 G-rat. 212, it was held that if from the delay which has taken place no correct account can be taken between the parties to the action, and the transactions of parties have become obscured by death of some of them; and if, under the circumstances of the case, it is too late to ascertain the merits of the controversy, the court wiU not interfere, whatever may have been the original justice of the claim. �In Hudson v. Hudson, 3 Eand. 117, where a bill for an account had been filed in 1810 for the settlement of trans- actions of a deceased person's executors, under a will under which they had qualified in 1789, and had been dismissed by ����