LACHES (Fr. lecher). Unreasonable de lay ; neglect to do a thing or to seek to en, force a right at a proper time.
The neglect to do that which by law a man is obliged or in duty bound to do. An derson v. Northrop, 30 Fla. 612, 12 South. 318.
The neglect to do what in law should have been done, for an unreasonable and unex plained length of time and under circum stances permitting diligence. Babb v. Sulli van, 43 S. C. • 436, 21 S. E. 277.
Unlike a limitation, it is not a mere mat ter of time, but principally a question of the inequity of permitting the claim to be enforced; an inequity founded upon some change in the condition or relation of the property of the parties; Lemoine v. Dunklin County, 51 Fed. 487, 2 C. C. A. 343, 10 U. S. App. 227; Galliher v. Cadwell, 145 U. S. 368, 12 Sup. Ct. 873, 36 L. Ed. 738. It has been said to involve the idea of negligence ; the neglect or failure to do what ought to have been done under the circumstances to protect the rights of the parties to whom it is im puted, or involving injury to the opposite party through such neglect to assert rights within a reasonable time; Ripley v. Selig man, 88 Mich. 177, 50 N. W. 143.
In general, laches is neglect to do what should have been done for an unreasonable or unexplained length of time under circum stances permitting diligence ; mere lapse of time before bringing suit without change of circumstances will not constitute laches; Newberry v. Wilkinson, 199 Fed. 673, 118 C. C. A. 111. Not only must there have been unnecessary delay, but it must appear that, by reason of the delay, some change has oc curred in the condition or relations of the property which would make it inequitable to enforce the claim; London & San Fran cisco Bank v. Dexter, Horton & Co., 126 Fed. 593, 601, 61 C. C. A. 515 ; Demuth v. Bank, 85 Md. 326, 37 Atl. 268, 60 Am. St. Rep. 322; Halstead 'v. Grinnan, 152 U. S. 412, 14 Sup. Ct. 641, 38 L. Ed. 495.
Courts of equity withhold relief from those who have delayed the assertion of their claims for an unreasonable time, And the mere fact that suit was brought within a reasonable time does not prevent the appli cation of the doctrine of laches when there is a want of diligence in the prosecution; Hagerman v. Bates, 5 Cal. App. 391, 38 Pee. 1100; Alsop v. Riker, 155 U. S. 449, 15 Sup. Ct. 162, 39 L. Ed. 218. The question of lach es depends not upon the fact that a certain definite time has elapsed since the cause of action accrued, but upon whether, under all the circumstances, the plaintiff is chargeable with want of due diligence in not instituting the proceedings sooner ; Townsend v. Vander werker, 160 U. S. 171, 16 Sup. Ct. 258, 40 L. Ed. 383 ; McIntire v. Pryor, 173 U. S. 38, 19 Sup. Ct. 352, 43 L. Ed. 606; it is not meas ured by the statute of limitations; Alsop Riker, 155 U. S. 449, 15 Sup. Ct. 162, 39 L.
Ed. 218; but depends upon the circumstanc es of the particular case; Griswold v. Haz ard, 141 U. S. 260, 11 Sup. Ct. 972, 999, L. Ed. 678. Where injustice would be done in the particular case by granting the relief asked, equity may refuse it and leave the party to his remedy at law ; Abraham v. Ordway, 158 U. S. 416, 15 Sup. Ct. 894, 39 L. Ed. 1036; or where laches is excessive and unexplained; Halsey v. Cheney, 68 Fed. 763, 15 C. C. A. 656, 34 U. S. App. 50. In the absence of negligence by the plaintiff, in the prosecution of his claim, no period short of the legal statute of limitations will bar an action on an equitable claim ; Houck's Adm'r v. Dunham, 92 Va. 211, 23 S. E. 238 ; and see The Queen, 78 Fed. 155, where it was held that "mere delay, for the full period of four years allowed by a state statute of limita tions, in bringing a suit in rem to recover damages to a cargo, is not of itself, and in the absence of exceptional circumstances from which laches would be imputable, suffi cient to justify the court in declining to entertain the suit ;" but where the complain ant has remained silent for a longer time, after the discovery of the material facts than the time limited by the statute of limi tations, it is lacheS; Kinne v. Webb, 54 Fed. 34, 4 C. C. A. 170, 12 U. S. App. 137. Where a statute provides that no claim is barred until the limitation of the statute has ac crued, a complainant cannot be denied relief because the action lacks but a few days of being barred by limitation, on the ground of gross lachea; Hill v. Nash, 73 Miss. 849, 19 South. 707. Where an equitable right of action is analogous to a legal right of ac tion, and there is a statute of limitations fixing a limit of time for bringing an action at law to enforce such claims, a court of eq uity will, by analogy, apply the same limit of time to proceedings taken to enforce the equitable right ; L. R. 6 H. L. 384. One in possession of land may wait until his title and possession are attacked before setting up equitable demands, without being charge able with laches; Massenburg v. Denison, 71 Fed. 618, 18 C. C. A. 280 ; as where an un authorized franchise in a street is given, ad joining property owners are not required to attack the validity of the franchise until their rights are actually invaded ; Hart v. Buckner, 54 Fed. 925, 5 C. C. 'A. 1, 2 U. S. App. 488. Mere lapse of time not sufficient to bar the corresponding legal remedy will not constitute laches barring a suit, there having been no change in the condition or relation of the property or parties which renders the enforcement of the claim inequi table ; First Nat. Bank v. Nelson, 106 Ala. 535, 18 South. 154; Ward v. Sherman, 192 U. S. 168, 24 Sup. Ct. 227, 48 L. Ed. 391.