Harris v. Hillegass
WILLIAM C. HARRIS v. MARIE HILLEGASS, Administratrix, etc., of William Hillegass
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- E. W. McKinstry (author)
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion — McKinstry
McKinstry, J.
-There was evidence to sustain the finding that the partnership created by the contract of June 26, 1849, was dissolved more than twenty years before the commencement of this action. As the dissolution occurred more than twenty years before the commencement of the action, the court below—a court of equity—was justified in refusing to entertain plaintiff’s application for relief. And, as laches deprives a plaintiff of the right to appeal to a court of equity, the court may refuse to entertain a suit brought after unreasonable delay, although the defendant has not, in his answer, alleged that the claim is stale. (Sullivan v. Portland, etc., P. P. Co., 94 U. S. 811.) Judgment and order affirmed.
McKee, J., and Ross, J., concurred.
Hearing in bank denied.
Cited by
- Curbelo v. Matson Navigation Co. Civ. 19602 · 1961-07-26
- Johnson v. Superior Court Docket No. 26. · 1929-11-26
- Stone v. McCarty Civ. No. 2614. · 1923-10-18
- Stevinson v. San Joaquin & Kings River Canal & Irrigation Co. Sac. No. 1774. · 1912-02-01
- Stevenson v. Boyd S.F. No. 4429. · 1908-05-26
- Plass v. Plass S. F. No. 1086 · 1898-08-30
- Chapman v. Bank of California No. 14158 · 1893-01-12
- Bell v. Hudson No. 12041 · 1887-08-30