Stale

Describes a claim too old to be entertained in a court of equity or of admiralty, on account of laches in the complainant; antiquated. Those courts have not always considered themselves ' bound by the Statute of Limitations, though the tendency is to give the statute uniform application in all courts. Courts of equity, acting on their own inherent doctrine of discouraging, for the peace of society, antiquated demands, refuse to interfere in attempts to establish a stale trust, except where the trust is clearly established and the facts have been fraudulently and successfully concealed by the trustee from the beneficiary. In a case for relief, the beneficiary should set forth in his bill, specifically, what were the impediments to an earlier prosecution of his claim; how he came to be BO long ignorant of his rights, the means used to keep him in ignorance, and how and when he first came to a knowledge of the matters alleged in his bill.' 1 Louisville v. Hyatt, 3 B. Men. 182 (1841). 2 O'Donnell v. Mclntyre, 16 Abb. N. Cas. 86 (1885): Mc Adam, Landl. & T. § 283; 5 Biss. 529; 35 Ga. 141. ' State V. Patza, 3 La. An. 514 (1848); State v. Lowry, 33 id. 1234 (1881); Ward v. State, 66 Ga. 410 (1876). < Fisher v. Hildreth, 117 Mass. 562 (1875), Colt, J. » Wil Us 11. Hoover, 9 Greg. 431 (1881), cases; Corson V. Neatheny, 9 Col. 314 (1886), cases; Smith, Contr. 265; 48 Me. 107; 4 Mete, Mass., 10; 8 Johns. 147; 16 S. & E. To let in a defense that a claim is stale it is not necessary that a foundation he laid in the answer. If the ease, as it appears at the hearing, is liable to the obiection by- reason of laches, the court will, upon that ground, be passive, and refuse relief. Every case is governed chiefly by its own cireumstances; sometimes the analogy of the Statute of Limitations is applied; sometimes a longer period than that prescribed by the statute is required; in some cases a shorter time is sufficient; and sometimes the rule is applied where there is no statutable bar. It is competent for the court to apply the inherent principles of its own system of jurisprudence, and to decide accordingl3\^ Length of time necessarily obscures all human evidence, and deprives parties of the means of ascertaining the nature of original transactions; it operates by way of presumption in favor of the party in possession. Long acquiescence and laches by parties out of possession are productive of much hardship and i^ justice to others and cannot be excused but by shelving some actual hinderance or impediment caused by the fraud or concealment of the party in possession, which will appeal to the conscience of the chancellor.^ See Delay; Limitation, 3.

Courts of admiralty and of equity have not always considered themselves bound by the statute of limitations, but have generally accepted its principle, so far at least as, in the exercise of a sound discretion, to discourage long delay in bringing suit, and to deny relief in cases where commencement of suit is unreasonably delayed, especially if the defendant's situation has been changed, his evidence has been lost, or he is otherwise prejudiced by the delay. A claim which is so old that a court of equity or admiralty will refuse to entertain it on account of complainant's laches is called stale. The time is not governed by positive general rules, but depends very much on the circumstances of the case. The tendency of modern legislation and practice is to apply the statute of limitations uniformly in all the courts.