Court Opinion

ID: 5550042
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-10 21:33:09.750086+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:35:02.189628
License: Public Domain

The Chancellor.
The parties lived in the same county, and, without accounting for the delay, the plaintiff suffered a period of 26 years to elapse, from the termination of the jimer-%can war, to the time of filing his bill. The offer made by the executors being for peace, and without any recognition of the justness of the demand, and being rejected by the plaintiff, cannot affect the question.
It would not be sound discretion to overhale accounts, in favour of a party who has slept on his rights for such a length of time; especially, against the representatives of the other party, who have no knowledge of the original transactions. It is against the principles of public policy, to require an account, after the plaintiff has been guilty of so great laches.
The bill must be dismissed on the ground of the staleness of the demand; but without costs.