Equity — Laches — Unavailability of testimony — Lack of due diligence — Assertion of rights — Laches apparent in bill — Preliminary objections — Averment of ignorance of rights — Sufficiency.
1. Laches will bar relief in equity to one who has slept upon his rights until the original transaction is obscured by lapse of years and death of parties, especially where the delay has made it impossible to produce evidence that would otherwise have been available. [396-7]
2. Where a party having the right to set aside a transaction stands by and sees another acting in a manner inconsistent with his alleged claim and makes no objection, the delay may bar a suit in equity. [396]
3. The question of laches does not depend upon the fact that a certain definite time has elapsed since the cause of action accrued, but upon whether, under the circumstances of the particular case, plaintiff is chargeable with want of due diligence in failing to institute or prosecute his proceeding. [396]
4. The assertion of plaintiffs' rights in an effort to adjust the claim is not sufficient to excuse an unreasonable delay. [396]
5. Where laches is apparent in the bill itself, it can be taken advantage of by the filing of preliminary objections. [397]
6. Where ignorance of rights or wrongs is relied on to account for laches, this fact must be plainly alleged in the bill. [398]
Argued December 5, 1938.
PER CURIAM, January 9, 1939:
The bill was filed January 26, 1937, by minority shareholders in The Lytle Coal Company, a Pennsylvania mining corporation, against that corporation and other parties, corporate and individual, for accounting and other relief. Defendants filed preliminary objections under Equity Rule 48. When they came on for hearing in the court below, plaintiffs asked and obtained leave to amend. After the bill was amended, the preliminary objections were renewed. The case then came on for hearing before the four judges of the court below sitting in banc. They were of opinion that it appeared from the bill that plaintiffs' laches stood in the way of recovery. The bill was therefore dismissed in an opinion written for the court in banc by VALENTINE, J., certain extracts from which, fully supporting the conclusion reached, will be found in the reporter's statement of the case.
The decree is affirmed at the costs of appellants.