Carter S v. Price S.

Decision Date16 March 1920
Citation85 W.Va. 744
CourtWest Virginia Supreme Court
PartiesMargaret E. Carter et als v. James A. Price et als.
1. Equity Defense of Laches May be Made by Demurrer When Facts Appear on Face of Bill.

The defense of laches may be made by demurrer when the facts upon which such defense is predicated appear from the face of the bill. (p. 749).

2. Same Where Complainant's"Laches" Injuriously affects the Adverse Party, a Court of Equity Will Decline to Give Relief.

Laches in legal significance is delay in the assertion of a claim which works disadvantage to another, and where it appears that by reason of such delay the adverse party would be injuriously affected because of the death of witnesses by whom the truth of the situation could be proven, or because injury might result to him on account of expenditures made upon the land in the way of improvements, or where no claim is asserted until after the land has grown in value, either because of the development of the territory or the discovery of valuable minerals thereon, and such delay in asserting such claim is so long as to lead to the belief that it is asserted largely because of the increased value of the land and the altered conditions, a court of equity will decline to give relief, (p. 749).

3. Same Delay in Assertion of Known Rights to Prejudice of Adverse Party is an Estoppel Against Assertion of Sucfo Rights.

Where a party knows his rights or is cognizant of his interest in a particular subject-matter, but takes no steps to enforce the same until the condition of the other party has, in good faith, become so changed, that he cannot be restored to his former state if the right be then enforced, delay becomes inequitable, and operates as an estoppel against the assertion of the right. This disadvantage may come from death of parties, loss of evidence, change of title or condition of the subject-matter, intervention of equities, or other causes. When a court of equity sees negligence on one side and injury therefrom on the other, it is a ground for denial of relief, (p. 749).

Appeal from Circuit Court, Kanawha County.

Suit by Margaret E. Carter and others against James A. Price and others. Demurrer to bill sustained and bill dismissed, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

A. M. Belcher, for appellants.

Brown, Jackson & Knight and M. F. Matheny, for appellees. Ritz, Judge:

This suit is brought by a daughter and the heirs-at-law of two other daughters of Edmund Price, Sr., against a son of said Edmund Price, Sr., and the descendants of his remaining children, and their grantees, for the purpose of having partition of certain real estate of which it is contended said Edmund Price, Sr., died seized; to have an accounting of the rents, issues and profits derived therefrom, as well as an accounting for waste alleged to have been committed thereon; and to have set aside a deed from said Edmund Price, Sr., to his sons Archibald Price, Edmund Price, Burdette Price and James Price, dated the 12th day of February, 1848, and recorded in the office of the clerk of the county court of Kanawha county on said 12th of February, 1848, upon the ground that said deed is a forgery.

The bill shows that Edmund Price, Sr., departed this life intestate, leaving surviving him eleven children, one of whom, Harriett Young and the heirs of two others, are the plaintiffs and one of whom, to_wit, James A. Price, and the heirs-at-law of the others, who are deceased, are the defendants, together with sundry of their grantees. It is alleged that at the time of the death of Edmund Price, Sr., he was seized and possessed of a tract of 859 acres of land lying in the county of Kanawha, which was the remainder of a larger tract of more than 1200 acres theretofore conveyed to him, he having in his lifetime conveyed away certain parcels of this 1200-acre tract. It is alleged further that there appears of record in the clerk's office of the county court of Kanawha county a deed of February 12, 1848, purporting to be signed by said Edmund Price, Sr., and to be acknowledged on said 12th of February, 1848, before A. W. Quarrier, clerk of the county court of said county, and admitted to record on said date, purporting to convey to Archibald Price, Edmund Price, Burdette Price and James Price, four of the sons of Edmund Price, Sr., said 859 acres of land, in consideration of one dollar and love and affection; that at the time said deed purports to have been made, to-wit, on the 12th of February, 1848, Edmund Price, Sr., was dead, and had been dead for a period of about six months, and that the said deed was executed in the name of said Edmund Price, Sr., by his son, one of the Grantees, Edmund Price, Jr., and that the other grantees in said deed knew of this forgery by their brother and co-grantee. The bill further alleges that Harriett Young, daughter of the said Edmund Price, Sr., and her two sisters, ancestors of the other plaintiffs were not living at the home of their father at the time of his death; that they were uneducated and had no knowledge or information of any kind or character of the recordation of said pretended deed, and were not familiar with the fact that deeds were recorded in the office of the clerk of the county court; and that they permitted their said brothers to live upon, use and occupy said lands, during all the years from 1848 to 1915, without requiring any accounting from them, or without making any claim to said land, but without knowledge of the existence or recordation of said deed of February 12, 1848. The bill further alleges that there are some two or three small tracts of land, parts of the larger tract conveyed to the said Edmund Price, which do not purport to have been conveyed by the deed of February, 1848, and that as to these tracts plaintiffs are unquestionably entitled to have partition thereof, and an accounting for waste committed thereon. It is further alleged that leases for oil and gas have been made by...

To continue reading

Request your trial
53 cases
  • Dunn v. Rockwell
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • November 24, 2009
    ...laches[.]" Maynard v. Board of Educ. of Wayne County, 178 W.Va. 53, 59, 357 S.E.2d 246, 253 (1987). See also, Syllabus Point 3, Carter v. Price, 85 W.Va. 744, 102 S.E. 685 (1920) ("Where a party knows his rights or is cognizant of his interest in a particular subject-matter, but takes no st......
  • Bank of Marlinton v. McLaughlin
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • October 28, 1941
    ... ... S.E. 145, 393, 111 A. L.R. 118; Chitwood v. Collins, ... 122 W.Va. 267, 8 S.E.2d 830; Curl v. Vance, 116 ... W.Va. 419, 181 S.E. 412; Carter v. Price, 85 W.Va ... 744, 102 S.E. 685; O'Neal v. Moore, 78 W.Va ... 296, 88 S.E. 1044; Snyder v. Charleston & S. Bridge Co., ... 65 W.Va. 1, ... ...
  • Kimble v. Kimble
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • March 12, 1986
    ...of equity sees negligence on one side and injury therefrom on the other, it is a ground for denial of relief.' Syllabus Point 3, Carter v. Price, 85 W.Va. 744, 102 S.E. 685 (1920); Syllabus Point 2, Mundy v. Arcuri, W.Va. , 267 S.E.2d 454 (1980)." Syl. pt. 5, Laurie v. Thomas, 170 W.Va., 27......
  • Maynard v. Board of Educ. of Wayne County
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • May 1, 1987
    ...equity sees negligence on one side and injury therefrom on the other, it is a ground for denial of relief. Syl. pt. 3, Carter v. Price, 85 W.Va. 744, 102 S.E. 685 (1920). Accord, syl. pt. 2, Hartley v. Ungvari, 173 W.Va. 583, 318 S.E.2d 634 (1984); syl. pt. 5, Laurie v. Thomas, 170 W.Va. 27......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT