WILLIAM C. HARRIS et al., Appellants, v. MARIE HILLEGASS, Administratrix, etc., of William Hillegass, Deceased, et al., Respondents

No. 8,261. Department One November 6, 1884. WILLIAM C. HARRIS et al., Appellants, v. MARIE HILLEGASS, Administratrix, etc., of William Hillegass, Deceased, et al., Respondents. Equity—Laches—Stale Demand—Pleading.—Laches deprives a party of the right to apply to a court of equity for relief, and the court will refuse to entertain a suit brought after unreasonable delay, although the defendant does not in his answer allege that the claim is stale. Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the county of Alameda, and from an order refusing a new trial. The suit was for an accounting of affairs of a partnership, alleged to have existed between the appellants and William Hillegass, deceased. It was found by the court that the partnership was dissolved more than twenty years prior to the commencement of the suit. The other facts appear in the opinion of the court. Edward J. Pringle, for Appellants. Sidney V. Smith & Son, for Respondents. [MAJORITY — McKinstry, J.] 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.