Harris v. Hillegass

California Supreme Court

Harris v. Hillegass

4 P. 987, 66 Cal. 79, 1884 Cal. LEXIS 690

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 6, 1884

DocketNo. 8,261

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 4 P. 987 (Harris v. Hillegass) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Harris v. Hillegass, 4 P. 987, 66 Cal. 79, 1884 Cal. LEXIS 690 (Cal. 1884).

Pincite

Opinion

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.

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 P. 987, 66 Cal. 79, 1884 Cal. LEXIS 690, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-hillegass-cal-1884.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack