Ellison v. Moffatt

1 Johns. Ch. 46
New York Court of Chancery·Decided May 18, 1814·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Ellison v. Moffatt, 1 Johns. Ch. 46 (N.Y. 1814).

1 Johns. Ch. 46 (Ellison v. Moffatt) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kellogg v. Kellogg
169 A.D. 395 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1915)
Hemphill v. Moody
62 Ala. 510 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1878)
Child's Appeal
23 N.H. 225 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1851)
Coleman v. Lyne's
4 Rand. 455 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1826)
Coleman v. Lyne's
4 Rand. 454 (Court of Appeals of Virginia, 1826)
Phillips v. Prevost
4 Johns. Ch. 205 (New York Court of Chancery, 1819)
Ray v. Bogart
2 Johns. Cas. 432 (New York Supreme Court, 1800)