Case Name: First Citizens' National Bank v. Philip R. MacAllister and William C. Colgate
Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Hampshire
Decision Date: 1977-03-31
Citations: 117 N.H. 277
Docket Number: No. 7624
Parties: First Citizens’ National Bank v. Philip R. MacAllister and William C. Colgate
Judges: 
Reporter: New Hampshire Reports
Volume: 117
Pages: 277–278

Head Matter:
Derry District Court
No. 7624
First Citizens’ National Bank v. Philip R. MacAllister and William C. Colgate
March 31, 1977
Robert Singer, of Manchester, by brief, for the plaintiff.
Robert H. Fryer, Londonderry, by brief, for defendant William C. Colgate.

Opinion:
Memorandum Opinion
This is an action by the holder of a promissory note seeking to recover from the maker and accommodation indorser the unpaid balance of the note. The plaintiff as well as the defendant indorser filed motions for summary judgment together with supporting affidavits. After a hearing Troisi, J., JtSA 502-A:5 (Supp. 1975), granted the plaintiff's motion. The defendant appealed. All questions of law were reserved and transferred.
The defendant indorser's only argument is that the plaintiff was guilty of laches and therefore should be barred from relief. However, the plaintiff seeks only legal, not equitable, relief. "Laches is a doctrine peculiarly applicable to suits in equity." 2 J. Pomeroy, A Treatise on Equity Jurisprudence § 419a n.7 (5th ed. S. Symons 1941). Thus, it has no applicability here. "[W]here only strictly legal rights are in controversy no neglect in asserting the right, short of the time prescribed by the statute of limitations, will bar the appropriate legal remedy." Aronovitch v. Levy, 288 Minn. 237, 242, 56 N.W.2d 570, 574 (1953), quoted in E. Re, Equity and Equitable Remedies, Cases and Materials 1139 (1975); see Note, Laches in Federal Substantive Law: Relation to Statutes of Limitations, 56 B.U.L. Rev. 970, 970 & 974-75 (1976).
Defendant's exception overruled.