The great West. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1889-18??, 1892-05-13

mon sense and can reason correctly. The only difference between such a
nerson and . iunst. is that the latter knows the law a a science. live
would submit a statement of facts IF a question of law to a scientist or a
logiian he would produce the proper concluson-or rue-as correctly as
tn ;ur;st and the only advantage which the latter would have yer the
former would be his knowledge OF the other branches of the law which might
be incidental to the question under consideration. Any question OF law
can be put into a sylogism, and I venture to say that a Tyndal o r a Proc
tor could reason out any question of law equal to a juist.
AS there IN no iunsts, very handy at least, let u IS have farmers for
Judges, and if we have a farmer who is also a scientist o r a logician, let us
have him, even in preference to a iurist, if we had any.
Now let us take up the doctrine OF laches and prove by the deasicns OF
the supreme court that a farmer can do as good and better than that
court has done. Everybody knows that the term aches mea delay, and
that in morals as we'll Is in law and equity, delay, per se, is OF no conse-
auence unless it has hurt some one. If by my delay another person has &C
nuiredc certain rights, which could not and would not have been acquired
but for my delay, the acquisition of which 1 had knowledge it would not
be fair for me to be allowed to deprive this man OF the rights which 1 al
loved, by Implication, to be acquired. This is nothing but the doctrine of
estoppel and estoppeli is nothing but a rule of moral law.
The manner in which this doctrine has been handled by our supreme
court can be best shown by first taking up the case OF Bausman v Kelley,
80 Mimi, 1877. In this case, Moore owed 100 aresn lear Minneapolis, and
gave a mortgage in 1855 to Hall for $277. Both residing in New York.
Mortgage paid in 1857; but satisfaction not recorded. Hall died in 1865,
and Moore before that. In 1870, a man named Lund got hold of this
mortgage without any assignment in writing or any other evidence OF own
ership but possession, and turned it over to a lawyer who foreclosed it by
advertisement, signing Halls name to the published notice and his own
name Is the attorney for Hall, and bought the land at the foreclosure
sale, and subsequently sold lit at private sale to various parties by or I'M
der whom the defendant acquired title. The plaintiff got title by inherit
ance whose ancestor purchased from Moore. the deed expressly excepting
the Hall mortgage. The defense a adverse possession and bona fde
purchaser for value. Thirteen years elapsed from the payment OF the mort
gage to the unlaw ful foreclosure, during which, the mortgagor and mort
gage died, and twelve years elapsed from the foreclosure to the commence
ment of the suit. The statute OF limitations at that time required twenty
Y Ys4c ss' go sP Pssss 1sdoee d. the ss3 s%s foT fos sas 's 1s P pr %ertss sesf ir On aSs 11
" The s1 court se%i held Id that the plaintiff could not recover because he was
E fIc% this Gi d scsss; t is s9 sb in.sa sssy, p a1tasnsea, for IF Twelve 1%s = ysa p s e asssss
title against s a purchaser i1s RI for ~. 1alus III in = adverse &c rsce, possession IS . h under r 3 4 a app
most remarkable violation OF principle and precedent that can be found
not recover because the mortgage stood for thirteen years after having
for 1sss; years: purchased y Sish a;s3 { I ese S- q II is az It'll isEs { s;%s:
s sss{ We 1.-THE, the plaintiff a 2tIsd ti,s ai3ss ssad sa aa is jsd i%pdsd p aGsis scd 5 he d9 Gisb ast he so IS
s ssisy 81 . isssss ,3 i: s B5'i ssis il s,% presumed 8 a ;saa tS tn1 I hi Sss s ss,s ns3 P Ssnss5 ;'
s s5s' ls . e gsf s;%, if t 5i% sas snS in n iasG issos. gs'e oh i tss s sts ta pos sssig Will ae
should / have alleged SsI Ii; gn9;aR %sa aaa aJ Ro Ssdf t. ;; Kendall. - MIMI a.4:
zno ;? Ss" !: vss 1s! IS Mr. ;. 4 S%n Es ST. y: $ s. + 4 1Sd i = f %S; V 7 /:
he : statute Ut Of 7 limitation applied to- to legal and equitable actions, which
t.: %sa sin sh a%@ asz s i% ;Se s s5a $ats1 viii i iss's the a sea sspS 4 is IS 3s' ss sHSss IN IN
M"Iss y Fssaeen holding dn hr ts a delay sefo under r. 'i Ea"emsn IS '1 Ketng t sn
s$$'s si :ss s.ssSS + s r; ~ ss : Ss &; :; 1s e s,s sse il, i; { v 3sss ii; III a.; ss #:
s s%s rs sii j% IT, Sset sRS'i sf ts, lssa' s as;ie9s e fsi If the ts. B', %e ss ss'i 9ss court court
.; $ s. f.: e; 3 sSs !: Vi $, 3 e. Vi s;1 + 81 '$S S : s4 !; e; TO- :Ss sa., .s s sa,' ts ss sss,,
to commence an action Tor specific performance under such circumstances
f ss s'f e! !e sdv ssss past 5Pt th ssss sss son "a ~e'Ss would si 9 aos be PsessSm ss ;is R sshss
s sss;bs ss1 t ssF thine shs s sitsin r aStSi5 tss ae{ios % 5ns 1 ss Sseu Of 3i% aad sos, Ras
STAND there . element S q estepPs!! in that 5 laS1sgsns !: 3 %5S
i sa s' which s WAS 81 known nss a to 5 Il he en- n 's Ss;Hs o under ssst any ; as sss1eSsi is Ia 1aeS he's
s ss d he ss s1G isaa not i 1T Ssss9s seek :" ss :?%sSy 9 81 %ias' 81; g t ?ss :7f ist " %sss
ss"s f ps9t years ia t s s%ea ano t ! having vii p' changed u d his as't pesH Q a md acquired sps &c
s sisnss s %s " ass1.s he to "G sas s true as spssSss we're. Ui ia tSs relic! ia f Bss ID r Tss es So
s M'Hns s ~s i e delay s no t spfG psin ss T judgment nos su snts It to vs." se t DaeFs a court oy t of
equity to enforce the extinct Judgment: IN ssa1orn = Eads: 4 dsay Of
s eIsssa; YEARS sas not no sp pss S. s' 'se ?s "S 4 R%' &fsrs 90 ss sss%s ss'f this IS eass AND S 5sas+
\ d., a %s1H IN Is the s' latter a OF: esS 'S' iass. no spp e sr' IN In the ss sss% ss1t tss e sas:d on
assss on i dsS SsnSo;n ", " E shd ' shs eoa sns t a?d't tSt 1 1aesss oa ID n 3as arise IS s s%s
less the delay was culpable with a knowledge of the facts actual or imput-
able and the effect on Others; and in Mueller '. Fruen that laches could not
a aoss ssS ssss se eisms stso s9ess H the s' sssse 81 a n e 5sasss9s ' . sstsRRs' so o9s ss
gent v. Bigelow. In Bausman " Kelly, the delay was IL years before suit
was commenced to set aside an unlawful foreclosure. In Sanb0rn v Eads,
the delay was Is years before suit was commence for the same purpose.
The additional facts in the former caseo ought not 81 a matter OF principle
add weight to the decision, because it was nothing but deayin all the facts
and in both cases.
It will be observed that all these cases conflict, none OF them announce
a principle O q rule; none go to the well defined and settled doctrine OF
laches in equity jurisprudence. and use it as the measure by which the facts
in the case before them, should be determined.
Now let us sex what q farmer with common sense would do and how he
x would ndn reason ana and d 1ess sts 9 mimr n one shs mo Ga sa conn., In he heca nme t Pai G
common sense. Why should any ones delay destroy his right when that
DELAY has not caused and cannot cause nv n any injury. If the delay
has caused the other party to change his position, IT acquire some right,