One who seeks to impeach a transaction on the ground of fraud must seek_ redress promptly ; Hilliard v. Wood Carving Co., 173, Pa. 1, 34 Atl. 231; Houston v. Hazzard, 2 Del, Ch. 247 ; Scheftel v. Hays, 58 Fed. 460, 7 C. C. A. 308. Mere lapse of time will some times render a fraudulent transaction unim peachable ; Brown v. Brown, 142 111. 409, 32 N. E. 500; Day v. Imp. Co., 153 Ill. 293, 38 N. E. 567 ; but when the fraud is secret and suit is begun within a reasonable time after its discovery, laches is not a defence ; Hodge v. Palms, 68 Fed. 61, 15 C. C. A. 220, 37 U. S. App. 61. Laches was held not imputable to a delay of more than ten years in filing a bill to set aside a fraudulent conveyance; Murphy v. Niles, 62 Ill. App. 193. See Mc Kneely v. Terry, 61 Ark. 527, 33 S. W. 953. It is not so much the duty of a suitor in equity to be diligent in discovering his rights as to be prompt in asserting them after they become known; Wetzel v. Transfer Co., 65 Fed. 23, 12 C. C. A. 490, 27 U. S. App. 594; and a delay of eleven months in asking for the reformation of a mortgage on the ground of mutual mistakes was held not such laches as to bar the right of a subsequent mortgagee with knowledge of the mistake ; Citizens' Nat. Bank of Attica v. Judy, 146 Ind. 322, 43 N. E. 259. Laches in assailing a fraud will not be imputed until the discovery of the fraud by the party affected thereby; Lee v. Patten, 34 Fla. 149, 15 South. 775; and it has been held that delay will not defeat the right to relief in case of fraud, unless the fraud is known or ought by due diligence to have been known ; Mudsill Min. Co. v. Watrous, 61 Fed. 163, 9 C. C. A. 415, 22 U. S. App. 12. Ignorance 'of facts complained of as fraud has been held no excuse for laches when the facts were evidenced by public rec ords accessible to all, unless some affirma tive act of deception be shown or some mis leading device intended to prevent inquiry and exclude suspicion ; Lant v. Manley, 71 Fed. 7.
Laches may also be excused from the ob scurity of the transaction; 2 Sch. & L. 487; see Chase v. Boughton, 93 Mich. 285, 54 N. W. 44; by the pendency of a suit ; 1 Sch. & L. 413 ; and where the party labors under a legal disability, as insanity; Craig v. Leiper, 2 Yerg. (Tenn.) 193, 24 Am. Dec. 479 ; in fancy ; McMillan v. Rushing, 80 Ala. 402 ; Hudson v. White, 17 R. I. 519, 23 Atl. 57;
or coverture ; Wilson v. McCarty, 55 Md. 277 ; Black v. Whitall, 9 N. J. Eq. 572, 59 Am. Dec. 423; 19 Ves. 640 ; poverty is no excuse for laches; Leggett v. Oil Co., 149 U. S. 287, 13 Sup. Ct. 902, 37 L. Ed. 737 ; nor are ignorance and absence from the country ; Naddo v. Bardon, 51 Fed. 493, 2 C. C. A. 335, 4 U. S. App. 642 ; no laches can be imputed to the public; In re County Com'rs of Hamp shire, 143 Mass. 424, 9 N. E. 756 ; County of Platt• v. Goodell, 97 Ill. 91. Laches on the part of its officers cannot be imputed to the government and no period of delay on the part of the sovereign power will serve to bar its right either in a court of law or equity when it sees fit to enforce it for the public benefit ; Gaussen v. U. S., 97 U. S. 584, 24 L. Ed. 1009; U. S. v. R. Co., 67 Fed. 969, 15 C. C. A. 117 ; but though not ordinarily a defence to a suit brought by the government, yet where such suit is brought solely to bene fit a private individual or where the govern ment sues to enforce a right of its own, growing out of some ordinary commercial transaction, it may be set up as a defence ; U. S. v. Beebe, 127 U. S. 338, 8 Sup. Ct. 1083, 32 L, Ed. 121; Union Pac. R. Co. v. U. S., 67 Fed. 975, 15 C. C. A. 123. It is not a rule of universal application that laches can not be set up in defence of a suit to enforce a charitable trust ; Church of Christ at In dependence, Mo., v. Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 71 Fed. 250. 17 C. C. A. 397. Laches of a testator will be imputed to his executor ; Halsey v. Cheney, 68 Fed. 763, 15 C. C. A. 656, 34 U. S. App. 50.
The defence of laches may be raised by a general demurrer; Meyer v. Saul, 82 Md. 459, 33 Atl. 539; Cammack v. Carpenter, 3 App. D. C. 219 ; Kerfoot v. Billings, 160 Ill. 563, 43 N. E. 801; or by plea or answer, or presented by argument either upon a pre liminary or final hearing; Woodmanse & Hewitt Mfg. Co. v. Williams, 68 Fed. 489, 15 ,C. C. A. 520, 37 U. S. App. 109. That the defence to laches must be made by answer and not by demurrer, see Sage v. Culver, 147 N. Y, 241, 41 N. E. 513. Even though laches is not pleaded or the bill demurred to, courts of equity may withhold relief from those who have delayed the assertion of their claims for an unreasonable time; Willard v. Wood, 164 U. S. 502, 17 Sup. Ct. 176, 41 L. Ed. 531. See INJUNCTION.