The Sentinel=record., 1911-12-17

dleregarded it and held the property as that of his sister and as his own, and that he had so notified appellee ana her mother. We cannot consid- CT those matters further than to take them as suggestions that if Col. liar rell was now alive, he could adduce proof upc1 which he and his grantees could make good his claim of adverse possession which he asserted in his confirmation suit Now that he IS dead and that his mouth is closed as a witness. 1t adds another reason why appellees claim should not be sus- tained at this time.
 The loss of testimony Is a material circumstance in enforcIng the eqult' able doctrine of laches. This prin- ciple Is illustrated in the case Of Dickson V. Sentell, S3 Ark. 3S5- In that case c. w. Sentell, a wealthy merchant of the City of New orleans, was creditor to large amount of his brother-in-law, David E. DicKsoa, planter and land owner in Lafayette County, Arkansas During the life of the mortgage the land was sold under execution for a small amount and purchased by another pd'son, who transferred the certificate to Sentell and q sheriff's deed was ex- ecuted to him. The mortgage was never foreclosed. and Sentell rested upon his legal title under the execu- tion sale. Both of the parties lived for many years afterwards, Dickson still still remaining .n possession of the property but recognizing Sentells rights by paying Iel.t to him. After the death of both, the heirs Of Dick son sought, in court of equity. to have the widow and heirs of Sentell held ;o be trustees; su. this court decided against them on the ground of laches, and Judge Riddick in dis posing of that question, sai:
 "Neither laches nor the statute of limitations was set up as defense in this case, the defendant simply de- nyIng most of the material allegations of the complaint But, though laehes was not pleaded, still this long de- lay must be considered. 1t lasted un. til Sentell and Dickson, the two prin. cipal actor in the transactions upor which this suit is based. and who prot ably alone fully understands them were both dead. After a delay that has sealed the mouths of these two most important witnesses, court ol equity ought not to set aside this deet unless clearly satisfied that the in terest of justice requires it and tha i Dickson had no notice or the adverse claim of the Sentells to his land un l til shortly before his own death. Upon a careful examination of tn whole record. we are convinced tha the evidence abundantly shows fact which were sufficient to put appelle' upon notice of her fathers hostili claim to the land and that she wa in fact possessed of sufficient actua knowledge of his conduct with re spect to the property to put her upol notice and call for action upon he part. Her passiveness, though thu situation called for action, has in volved innocent parties and, upon set tied principles of equity, she canno demand relief against them in a cour Of conscience.
 It IS unnecessary for us to pass or the question whether the court O chancery should have entertained Jurisdiction of the cause or transfer red it to court of law. AppeIle, having selected the forum and volun tarily invoked the aid of the chancer, court she cannot complain that tho action should have been in coulf of law. Cribs V. Walk<r, n Ark. 104
 The decree of the chancgllor is therefore reversed and the cause fl remaaded with directions to enter z decree dismissing the complaint fol want of equity.
 --------