Case ID: silv-ct-app_2/html/0459-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ann Duffy v. Michael Duffy, Respondent; Roseanna Hughes et al., Appellants.
    
      Court of Appeals,
    
    
      December 3, 1889.
    Affirming 56 Super. 593.
    
      Abatement and revival. Laches.—A delay of eleven years after plaintiffs death, in an action to set aside a deed as fraudulent, constitutes so great laches as to justify the court, in its discretion, in denying a motion by the heirs to revive and continue the action in their names.
    This action was begun in September, 1863, in the New York superior court, to have a deed set aside as fraudulent. The plaintiff died in 1877, while the action was pending, and nothing was done till 1888, when this motion was made to revive and continue the action. The motion was denied, and on appeal to the general term the order was affirmed.
    Appeal from an order of the general term of the superior court of the city of New York, affirming an order denying a motion to revive and continue this action.
    
      Chas. P. Cowles, for appellants.
    
      
      H. B. Closson, for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

The laches in this case was so great that the court, in the exercise of its discretion, could deny the motion, and for this conclusion the cases of Coit v. Campbell, 82 N. Y. 509; Lyon v. Park, 111 Id. 350 ; 19 N. Y. State Rep. 626, and Matter of Palmer, 115 N. Y. 493; 26 N. Y. State Rep. 338, are ample authorities.

There is, therefore, nothing for us to review, and the appeal should be dismissed, with costs.

All concur.