by John Marshall Harlan

Name: Abraham v. Ordway — Opinion of the Court
Author: by John Marshall Harlan

Abraham v. Ordway — Opinion of the Court

Summary

“Abraham v. Ordway — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by by John Marshall Harlan. It explores elements such as equity, deed and laches.

Quotes from Abraham v. Ordway — Opinion of the Court (by John Marshall Harlan)

by John Marshall Harlan, Abraham v. Ordway — Opinion of the Court

“ One of the grounds upon which courts of equity refuse relief where the plaintiff is guilty of laches is the injustice of imposing upon the defendant the necessity of making proof of transactions long past, in order to protect himself in the enjoyment of rights which, during a considerable period, have passed unchallenged by his adversary, with full knowledge of all the circumstances. The principle has been thus stated by this court: 'Length of time necessarily obscures all human evidence, and deprives parties of the means of ascertaining the nature of original transactions ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

by John Marshall Harlan, Abraham v. Ordway — Opinion of the Court

“ That ground is that the plaintiffs, and those under whom they assert title, have been guilty of such laches as to have lost all right to invoke the aid of a court of equity. Nearly 19 years elapsed after the execution of the e ed to Norris before the present suit was brought. And, although the plaintiff Elizabeth was the wife of Caro when that deed was made, she was divorced in 1876, nearly 13 years before the institution of these proceedings. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

by John Marshall Harlan, Abraham v. Ordway — Opinion of the Court

“ Whether this deed was recorded or not the bill does not state. But the grantee in that deed did not die until August 10, 1886, nearly 12 years after the conveyance to her, nearly 17 years after the date of the deed to Norris, and more than 7 years after the sale and conveyance to Mrs. Ordway under that deed. It does not appear that Esther Rebecca Abraham, in her lifetime, ever disputed the title acquired by Mrs. Ordway under the sale made by Norris, trustee. No explanation is given in the bill of her failure to bring suit. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

by John Marshall Harlan, Abraham v. Ordway — Opinion of the Court

“ In such cases courts of equity often act upon their own inherent doctrine of discouraging, for the peace of society, antiquated demands, by refusing to interfere where there has been gross laches in prosecuting rights, or long acquiescence in the assertion of adverse rights. 2 Story, Eq. § 1520. A court of equity will not give relief against conscience or where a party has slept upon his rights.'
Allore v. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

by John Marshall Harlan, Abraham v. Ordway — Opinion of the Court

“ Ordway's purchase, which was more than 10 years prior to this suit. It is now too late to ask assistance from a court of equity. The relief sought cannot be given consistently with the principles of justice, or without encouraging such delay in the assertion of rights as ought not to be tolerated by courts of equity. Whether equity will interfere in cases of this character must depend upon the special circumstances of each case. Sometimes the courts act in obedience to statutes of limitations ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

by John Marshall Harlan, Abraham v. Ordway — Opinion of the Court

“ Counsel express gratification that an opportunity is presented in this case for the construction of what is known as the married woman's act of April 10, 1869, in force in the District of Columbia, particularly the section providing that 'any married woman may contract and sue, and be sued in her own name, in all matters having relation to her sole and separate property, in the same manner as if she were unmarried.' Rev. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

by John Marshall Harlan, Abraham v. Ordway — Opinion of the Court

“ Long acquiescence and laches by parties out of possession are productive of much hardship and injustice to others, and cannot be excused but by showing some actual hindrance or impediment caused by the fraud or concealment of the party in possession, which will appeal to the conscience of the chancellor.' Wagner v. Baird, 7 How. 258.
The appellants insist that, as this suit relates to land, the doctrine of laches, as announced in the above cases, has no application. There is no foundation in the adjudged cases for this suggestion. It is true, as stated by counsel, that in Wagner v. ”

by John Marshall Harlan

Summary

Quotes from Abraham v. Ordway — Opinion of the Court (by John Marshall Harlan)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature