Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1889-03-19

prayer preferred by one VINO LAS ioSt MS
equity by wilful laches and gross neglI-
gence.
ously equitable principle has been lad
down, the suitor has been out of possession
OF lard or other property, aud has sought 10
recover it in suit brought by himself in his
own intereet. The Courts have not en-
forced the principle with rigor in suits not
brought by such claimant, IN which ibis
has not been the OF ct of the proceeding,
and in which claims of long standing have
incidentally arisen for consideration.
In the leading case of Badger vs.. Badger,
supra, the Court uses the expressions,
Long aoQnescence and laches by parties
ont of possession" and 1.-THE facts must have
been iraudulently and successfully con-
cealed" In the case of Speidel vs. Heinrich
&he Court held that "a Court of Equity will
MT assist one who has slept upon his rights
and shoes no etcuSe for his laches in assert
ipc them" In Goddin VS.. kimball the
Court held that equity will sustain de-
fense against stale claim where there has
been "gross laches" in prosecuting it. In
Richards VS.. Mackall the Court reversed
the lower Court and refused to give upon
the stonnd that the appellee, upon his own
showing, had been guilty OF gross lacheS In
applying for relief"
In Sullivan VS.. Portland r. r. Co., the
Court said, 'the complanants were supine
and silent for more than seventeen years, "
stated how intervening rights of boua Idle
creditors had arisen, and concluded, this
long delay thus characterized is unaccount'
ed for.n The facts are amply sufficient to
warrant the application OF the rule of aches
81, -, 3 ba tfft1llact afilnt "
i Is apparent from these cases. that mere
apse of lime, mere laches, mere etalenese,
do not defeat an equitable claim, and that
the Court will give relief unless the conduct
of The claimant he's on the whole been such
as to render it uuconacionable for Court OF
| Equity 10 interfere IN his behalf, If thu
lachea are susceptible of explanation, itthey
| have been due 10 q commendabie motive, II
| the rights Of third persons have not been
wantonly l.isregarded, if, in short, the con
duct Of the claimant has not been such as to
b;iup !he frowns CT a Court Of Equity upon
hin. ne gay sven in equity recover just
clain, no: outstanding the nero lapse oi
time s!ace it arose.
| will state the prominent facs in the
ease at bar. The Alexaudrie and George
.own Canal was an important feeder TO The
was regarded as 50 important that the city
subscribed more than half million q
dollars to the stock OF tho canal company in
aid of its construction. From that time or,
fcr fif;v wears, the city fostcred, helped aud
inGu'ged the company by favors aud by
loaus. The canal company was CONTINUALLY
! in need of peCuaiary aid or forhearsnce, and
the city continually granted what so much
naeded. The city forbore 10 enforce lis
clsms. Ia November, 1858. the canal COM
parry by formal record, upon deliberate
computation Of accounts, acknowledged that
it owed The city the principal sum OF SOL
| SOB, ard interest on account Of Is to the
amount OF $40 05G. Tnis acknowledgment
embraced the bonds amounting 10 $50 OOO
heretofore mentioned. The canal company
proposed 9 scheme far securing that debt
which ii failed to carry into elect The
canal company wss not abe 10 pay its pc
cunary CD isa;ioDs to the city, ana the city
f,i bore TO enforce them TIE treasurer OF
the oily in MS testimony before the master
Of this cause declared that the solo reason
for tho non-enforcement was. that 1t would
result in closing the Alexandria canal"
II. Therefore, there were laches on the
cart Of the city they are not "unaccounled
fcln or "unexyaiaed" theY were not ECU
psbie" or gross" as in those cases in which
courts of equity are wont TO refusa relief.
If the forbearaucs of the city OF Alexandra
10 enforce its cleims against IFS fostering the
canal COMPANY, constituted negligence al
ali. il was not OF such a character a. TO req
der inconiahle the ipsistence CT the city
npon the payment of euch bonds now due TO
her. as are not barred by statute. Moreover
it seems to ne that the equities between the
complainant ia this cause ard this long for
bearing creditor OF the canal company are in
favor OF tho ndugsnt creditor. Not long
ago the complainant, that is TO say, the
United States, sued the city OF Alexandria
for n large number Of Tho original shares Of
the capital stock OF the canal company,
which Alexandria had stipulated to deliver,
and bad not actually delivered, to con-
plainant This court granted the demand
and required ho delivery of the stock.
Thcreupan the complainant, having
thereby acquired possession OF a majority OF
the stock oil the canal company, exercised
that mower TO consummae sale OF the Rque-
duct which eros es the Potomac at George
town aud which FED the canal with the wa
ter necessary 20 its utility es canal. Such
is one 81 tie allegations Of cOmplninents
bill. The sale OF thst squeduct rendered
the cAusl imperative aud useless snG super
induced tie forfeiture OF the f;aaohiaes Of
the canal company.
The bill in this Gaze is brought by the
United States for forfeiture OF this fran
chse, fer the sale Of the property CT tina ca
ma! company, for the payment OF its debts,
and for distribution of whatever fund thal
shall remain among its shareholders. The
fsteine Of the city Of Alexandria has been
deprived Of life by the act ol- complainant in
cutting off the source of iis vitality. Is it
ineQuitsble for the foster mother now 10 de-
mand the payment of such debts due to her
og are not barred By express law Il such
a demand inequitabe at all and especially
is it negotiable in so far as the payment of
hislong forborne debt may diminish the die
tributiye share of money which would 9th
erwise fall to complainant out OF the assets
OF The deceased corporation ? think not.
aud 30 feel bound to adhere to The ruling
| made at the former hearing CT this cause