Hughes v. Magoris

• Citation: 147 N.W. 94,27 N.D. 479
• Decision Date: 15 April 1914
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota

147 N.W. 94

27 N.D. 479

ABBIE A. HUGHES v. J. H. MAGORIS

Supreme Court of North Dakota

April 15, 1914

Appeal from the District Court of Grand Forks County, Templeton, J.

Action for accounting.

Affirmed.

Geo. R Robbins and Geo. A. Bangs, for appellant.

The plaintiff is guilty of laches in not bringing this case up for trial, and there is no justification or excuse for such failure. Naddo v. Bardon, 2 C. C. A. 335, 4 U.S App. 642, 51 F. 493; Hayward v. Eliot Nat. Bank, 96 U.S. 611, 618, 24 L.Ed. 855, 858; Washington v Opie, 145 U.S. 214, 36 L.Ed. 680; Patterson v Hewitt, 11 N. M. 1, 55 L.R.A. 658, 66 P. 552, 195 U.S 309, 49 L.Ed. 214, 25 S.Ct. 35.

Within the time fixed by the statute a court of equity will apply the doctrine of laches, and refuse relief upon equitable grounds, where plaintiff has slept on his rights, or where justice cannot be done defendant. Freeman v. Wood, 14 N.D. 106, 103 N.W. 392; Patterson v. Hewitt, 11 N. M. 1, 55 L.R.A. 658, 66 P. 552, 195 U.S. 309, 49 L.Ed. 214, 25 S.Ct. 35; Great West Min. Co. v. Woodmas of Alston Min. Co. 14 Colo. 90, 23 P. 908; Hughes v. Kershow, 42 Colo. 210, 15 L.R.A.(N.S.) 723, 93 N.W. 1116; Wilson v. Wilson, 41 Ore. 459, 69 P. 923; Hagerman v. Bates, 5 Colo.App. 391, 38 P. 1100; Calhoun v. Millard, 121 N.Y. 69, 8 L.R.A. 248, 24 N.E. 27; Mason v. Sanford, 137 N.Y. 497, 33 N.E. 546; Boyer v. East, 161 N.Y. 580, 76 Am. St. Rep. 290, 56 N.E. 114; Bliss v. Prichard, 67 Mo. 181; Kline v. Vogel, 90 Mo. 239, 1 S.W. 733, 2 S.W. 408; Sheldon v. Rockwell, 9 Wis. 181, 76 Am. Dec. 265; Stevenson v. Boyd, 153 Cal. 630, 19 L.R.A.(N.S.) 525, 96 P. 284; Curtis v. Lakin, 36 C. C. A. 222, 94 F. 251, 20 Mor. Min. Rep. 35.

Poverty is not an excuse for failure to exercise diligence in bringing suit to assert rights, or for failure to prosecute same. Naddo v. Bardon, 2 C. C. A. 335, 4 U.S. App. 642, 51 F. 493; Hayward v. Eliot Nat. Bank, 96 U.S. 611, 618, 24 L.Ed. 855, 858; Washington v. Opie, 145 U.S. 214, 36 L.Ed. 680; Patterson v. Hewitt, 11 N. M. 1, 55 L.R.A. 658, 66 P. 552, 195 U.S. 309, 49 L.Ed. 214, 25 S.Ct. 35; Freeman v. Wood, 14 N.D. 95, 103 N.W. 392; Wilson v. Wilson, 41 Ore. 459, 69 P. 923; Alsop v. Riker, 155 U.S. 448, 460, 39 L.Ed. 218, 222, 15 S.Ct. 162; Hughes v. Kershow, 42 Colo. 210, 15 L.R.A.(N.S.) 723, 93 P. 1116; Kline v. Vogel, 90 Mo. 239, 1 S.W. 733, 2 S.W. 408; Stevenson v. Boyd, 153 Cal. 630, 19 L.R.A.(N.S.) 525, 96 P. 284; Lux v. Haggin, 69 Cal. 255, 10 P. 674; Chapman v. Bank of California, 97 Cal. 155, 159, 31 P. 896; Harris v. Hillegass, 66 Cal. 79, 4 P. 987; Bell v. Hudson, 73 Cal. 287, 2 Am. St. Rep. 791, 14 P. 791.

Plaintiff must show good excuse for his delay. Patterson v. Hewitt, 11 N. M. 1, 55 L.R.A. 658, 66 P. 552, 195 U.S. 309, 49 L.Ed. 214, 25 S.Ct. 35; Naddo v. Bardon, 2 C. C. A. 335, 4 U.S. App. 642, 51 F. 493; Hayward v. Eliot Nat. Bank, 96 U.S. 611, 618, 24 L.Ed. 855, 858; Hagerman v. Bates, 5 Colo.App. 391, 38 P. 1100; Johnson v. Standard Min. Co. 148 U.S. 360, 370, 37 L.Ed. 480, 485, 13 S.Ct. 585, 17 Mor. Min. Rep. 554; Willard v. Wood, 164 U.S. 502, 525, 41 L.Ed. 531, 540, 17 S.Ct. 176; Hughes v. Kershow, 42 Colo. 210, 15 L.R.A.(N.S.) 723, 93 P. 1116; Continental Nat. Bank v. Heilman, 30 C. C. A. 232, 58 U.S. App. 475, 86 F. 514; 16 Cyc. 163; Segers v. Ayers, 95 Ark. 178, 128 S.W. 1045; Mackall v. Casilear, 137 U.S. 556, 566, 34 L.Ed. 776, 779, 11 S.Ct. 178; Stuckey v. Lockard, 87 Ark. 237, 112 S.W. 747; Jackson v. Becktold Printing & Book Mfg. Co. 86 Ark. 591, 20 L.R.A.(N.S.) 454, 112 S.W. 161; Carlock v. Carlock, 249 Ill. 330, 94 N.E. 507; Ten Broeck v. Jackson, 71 N.J.Eq. 582, 69 A. 488; Lutjen v. Lutjen, 64 N.J.Eq. 773, 53 A. 625; Evans v. Woodsworth, 213 Ill. 404, 72 N.E. 1082; Haffy v. Jenney, 54 Mich. 511, 20 N.W. 563; Benson v. Dempster, 183 Ill. 297, 55 N.E. 651; Dempster v. Rosehill Cemetery Co. 206 Ill. 271, 68 N.E. 1070.

Laches, unless satisfactorily explained, will bar a recovery. Hayward v. Eliot Nat. Bank, 96 U.S. 611, 25 L.Ed. 855; Davidson v. Davis, 125 U.S. 90, 31 L.Ed. 635, 8 S.Ct. 825; Twin-Lick Oil Co. v. Marbury, 91 U.S. 587, 23 L.Ed. 329, 3 Mor. Min. Rep. 688; Brown v. Buena Vista County, 95 U.S. 157, 161, 24 L.Ed. 422, 423; Richards v. Mackall, 124 U.S. 183, 31 L.Ed. 396, 8 S.Ct. 437; Cole v. Birmingham Union R. Co. 143 Ala. 427, 39 So. 403; Stevenson v. Boyd, 153 Cal. 630, 19 L.R.A.(N.S.) 525, 96 P. 284; Chapman v. Bank of California, 97 Cal. 155, 31 P. 896; Evans v. Woodsworth, 213 Ill. 404, 72 N.E. 1082; Babb v. Sullivan, 43 S.C. 436, 21 S.E. 277; Horton v. Stegmyer, 99 C. C. A. 332, 175 F. 756, 20 Ann. Cas. 1134; Graff v. Portland Town & Mineral Co. 12 Colo.App. 106, 54 P. 854; Hagerman v. Bates, 5 Colo.App. 391, 38 P. 1100; Bateman v. Reitler, 19 Colo. 547, 36 P. 548; Hall v. Nash, 33 Colo. 500, 81 P. 249; Woodruff v. Williams, 35 Colo. 28, 5 L.R.A.(N.S.) 986, 85 P. 90; Jones v. Bonanza Min. & Mill Co. 32 Utah 450, 91 P. 273; Hoyt v. Pawtucket Inst. for Savings, 110 Ill. 390; Dobbins v. Wilson, 107 Ill. 17; Harris v. Hillegass, 66 Cal. 79, 4 P. 987; 18 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 123; 1 Cyc. 430, 431; Smith v. Emery, 106 Me. 258, 76 A. 686; Glenwood Mfg. Co. v. Syme, 109 Wis. 355, 85 N.W. 432; International Silver Co. v. William H. Rogers Corp. 66 N.J.Eq. 140, 57 A. 725; Wilson v. Wilson, 41 Ore. 459, 69 P. 923; Tozier v. Brown, 202 Pa. 359, 51 A. 998; McKnight v. Taylor, 1 How. 161, 11 L.Ed. 86; Rives v. Morris, 108 Ala. 527, 18 So. 743; Adams v. Taylor, 14 Ark. 62; Groenendyke v. Coffeen, 109 Ill. 325; Curtis v. Lakin, 35 C. C. A. 222, 94 F. 251, 20 Mor. Min. Rep. 35; Townsend v. Vanderwerker, 160 U.S. 171, 40 L.Ed. 383, 16 S.Ct. 258; Hume v. Beale (Crosby v. Beale) 17 Wall. 350, 21 L.Ed. 605; Patterson v. Hewitt, 11 N. M. 1, 55 L.R.A. 658, 66 P. 552; Galliher v. Cadwell, 145 U.S. 368, 36 L.Ed. 738, 12 S.Ct. 873.

Laches need not be pleaded. The right of recovery is barred if the complaint and testimony do not excuse the delay. 12 Enc. Pl. & Pr. 829; 13 Enc. Pl. & Pr. 183; Freeman v. Wood, 14 N.D. 106, 103 N.W. 392; Sullivan v. Portland & K. R. Co. 94 U.S. 806, 811, 24 L.Ed. 324, 326; Richards v. Mackall, 124 U.S. 183, 31 L.Ed. 396, 8 S.Ct. 437; Stevenson v. Smith, 189 Mo. 447, 88 S.W. 86; Schmitt v. Hagar, 88 Minn. 413, 93 N.W. 110; Wagner v. Sanders, 62 S.C. 73, 39 S.E. 950; Taylor v. Slater, 21 R. I. 104, 41 A. 1001; Chase v. Chase, 20 R. I. 202, 37 A. 804; Evans v. Woolsworth, 213 Ill. 404, 72 N.E. 1082; Coon v. Seymour, 71 Wis. 340, 37 N.W. 243; Hagerman v. Bates, 24 Colo. 71, 49 P. 139; Harris v. Hillegass, 66 Cal. 79, 4 P. 987; Chapman v. Bank of California, 97 Cal. 155, 31 P. 896; Bell v. Hudson, 73 Cal. 289, 2 Am. St. Rep. 791, 14 P. 791.

Stephen J. Cowley, for respondent.

Where laches or staleness of a demand is relied on, it must be taken advantage of in the court below. Humphreys v. Butler, 51 Ark. 351, 11 S.W. 479; Walker v. Denison, 86 Ill. 142; Emmons v. Oldham, 12 Tex. 18; State v. Holloway, 8 Blackf. 45; Randolph v. Knox County, 114 Mo. 142, 21 S.W. 592; Duncan v. New York Mut. Ins. Co. 138 N.Y. 88, 20 L.R.A. 386, 33 N.E. 730; Wills v. Dunn, 5 Gratt. 384; Douglass v. Ferris, 138 N.Y. 192, 34 Am. St. Rep. 435, 33 N.E. 1041.

When relied upon as a defense, it must be pleaded. Hill v. Barner, 96 P. 111.

It should also be claimed and set up in the court below. Henshaw v. State Bank, 239 Ill. 515, 130 Am. St. Rep. 241, 88 N.E. 214; Zeigler v. Hughes, 55 Ill. 288; Spalding v. Macomb & W. I. R. Co. 225 Ill. 585, 80 N.E. 327; Schnell v. Rock Island, 232 Ill. 89, 14 L.R.A.(N.S.) 874, 83 N.E. 462; Coryell v. Klehm, 157 Ill. 462, 41 N.E. 864; Trustees of Schools v. Wright, 12 Ill. 432; O'Halloran v. Fitzgerald, 71 Ill. 53; Darst v. Murphy, 119 Ill. 343, 9 N.E. 887; Dawson v. Vickery, 150 Ill. 398, 37 N.E. 910.

The only exception to these rules is where the complaint or bill undertakes to account for or explain the delay in bringing suit. Coryell v. Klehm, 157 Ill. 462, 41 N.E. 864.

Laches is a matter of defense. Murto v. Lemon, 19 Colo.App. 314, 75 P. 160.

In equity, a claim not urged on trial cannot be raised on appeal. Ketchell v. Keene, 171 Mich. 108, 136 N.W. 1121; Gable v. Cedar Rapids, 150 Iowa 108, 129 N.W. 737.

The supreme court will not consider an objection not urged in the court below. Ditton v. Purcell, 21 N.D. 648, 36 L.R.A.(N.S.) 149, 132 N.W. 347; International Text-Book Co. v. Marvin, 166 Mich. 660, 132 N.W. 437.

Laches and estoppel constitute affirmative defenses, and must be pleaded and the facts proved. McDermott v. Anaheim Union Water Co. 124 Cal. 112, 56 P. 779; Sage v. Culver, 147 N.Y. 241, 41 N.E. 513; 12 Enc. Pl. & Pr. 831; Jones v. The Richmond, F. Cas. No. 7,492; The Platina, 3 Ware, 180, F. Cas. No. 11,210; Green v. Terwilliger, 56 F. 384.

After judgment on issues on account, it is too late for losing party to set up defense of staleness. Roemmich v. Wamsganz, 8 Mo.App. 576; 12 Enc. Pl. & Pr. 833.

The higher court is restricted to hearing of such issues only as where raised in lower court. Cooper v. Armstrong, 3 Kan. 78; Re Campau, 48 Mich. 236, 12 N.W. 217; Fuller v. Schroeder, 20 Neb. 631, 31 N.W. 109; Trimmer v. Adams, 18 N.J.Eq. 505; Hinman v. Stillwell, 34 Hun, 178; Kilgore v. Emmitt, 33 Ohio St. 410.

On appeal in equity cases, the parties are confined to the pleadings and the evidence in the lower court. Pacific R Co. v. Ketchum (Pacific R. Co. v. Missouri P. R. Co.) 95 U.S. 1, 24 L.Ed. 347; Bloodgood v. Clark, 4 Paige, 574; Morris v. Richardson, 11 Humph. 389; Van Zile, Eq. Pl. & Pr. 496; Blease v. Garlington, 92 U.S. 1, 23 L.Ed. 521; Studwell v. Palmer, 6 Paige, 57; Hill v. Bourkhard, 5 Colo.App. 58, 36 P. 1115; Shelton v. Franklin, 224 Mo. 342, 135 Am. St. Rep. 537, 123 S.W. 1084; O'Reilly v. Campbell, 116 U.S. 418, 29 L.Ed. 669, 6 S.Ct. 421; Sweeney v. Great Falls &...