that such a statute excepted from its operation a foreign corporation which maintained an agent authorized to serve process within the State, it was followed by the Federal court.47

Where the State statute authorizes, after a dismissal or nonsuit a renewal of the litigation for the same cause of action within a limited time it will be followed by the Federal court.48 A second suit for death caused by negligence is considered to be for the same cause of action although different acts of negligence are alleged.49

Federal courts of equity are not bound by State Statutes of Limitations,50 except in cases where their jurisdiction is concurrent with the jurisdiction at common law; 51 but they will usually follow them,52 unless injustice otherwise would be done.53 espe

47 Quinette v. Pullman Co., C. C. A., 233 Fed. 980.

48 Hicks v. Fordham, C. C. A., 246 Fed. 236. See Lee v. Levison, C. C. A., 247 Fed. 478.

49 McClintic-Marshall Const. Co. v. Forgy, C. C. A., 246 Fed. 193, 199.

50 Wagner v. Baird, 7 How. 234, 258, 12 L. ed. 681, 691; Godden v. Kimmell, 99 U. S. 201, 25 L. ed. 431; Wilson v. Koontz, 7 Cranch, 202, 3 L. ed. 315; Kirby v. L. S. & M. S. R. Co., 120 U. S. 130, 137, 30 L. ed. 569, 572; Richards v. Maryland Ins. Co., 8 Cranch, 84, 3 L. ed. 496; Hanger v. Abbott, 6 Wall, 532, 18 L. ed. 939; Etting v. Marx's Ex'r, 4 Fed. 673; Stevens v. Sharp, 6 Sawy. 993; Continental Nat. Bank v. Heilman, 81 Fed. 36; Redd v. Brun, C. C. A., 157 Fed. 190; Jackson v. Horton, 3 Caines (N. Y.) 19; Ide v. Trorlicht, D. & R. Carpet Co., C. C. A., 115 Fed. 137; Stevens v. Grand Cent. Min. Co., C. C. A., 133 Fed. 28.

51 Wagner v. Baird, 7 How. 234, 258, 12 L. ed. 681, 691; Godden v. Kimmell, 99 U. S. 201, 25 L. ed. 431; Meath v. Phillips Co., 108 U. S. 553, 27 L. ed. 819. Contra,

Rodgers v. Thomas, C. C. A., 193
Fed. 952, 957; Riner, J.:
"We
think it is the general rule that
courts of equity in cases of concur-
rent jurisdiction usually consider
themselves bound by the statute of
limitations which govern courts of
law in like cases, and this rather
in obedience to the statute of limita-
tions than by analogy, while in
many other cases they act upon the
analogy of the statute of limitations
at law."

52 Wagner v. Baird, 7' How. 234, 258, 12 L. ed. 681, 691; Broderick's Will, 21 Wall. 503, 22 L. ed. 599; Godden v. Kimmell, 99 U. S. 201, 25 L. ed. 431; Meath v. Phillips County, 108 U. S. 553; Kirby v. L. S. & M. S. R. Co., 120 U. S. 130, 30 L. ed. 569; Pratt v. Northam, 5 Mason, 95, 112, per Story, J.; Norris v. Haggin, 136 U. S. 386, 34 L. ed. 424; O'Brien v. Wheelock, 184 U. S. 450, 482, 493, 46 L. ed. 636, 651, 655; Smith v. Smith, C. C. A., 224 Fed. 1.

58 Higgins Oil & Fuel Co. v. Snow, C. C. A., 113 Fed. 433; Patterson v. Safe Deposit & Trust Co., 148 Fed. 787; Redd v. Brun, C. C. A., 157 Fed. 190; Fogg v. St. Louis, H.

cially in foreclosure suits 54 and suits against executors and administrators,55 unless there is an Act of Congress upon the subject. It has been said that a Federal court of equity will never follow a State statute of limitation when thereby manifest wrong and injustice would be wrought.56 nor usually in case of a fraud that has been concealed.57

The Federal courts will usually give such statutes the same construction that is placed upon them by the courts of the respective States where they were enacted; 58 but a court of admiralty refused to follow a decision of a State court which did not permit a foreign corporation, subject to service of process within the State, to plead the statute.59

It has been said that the Statute of Limitations is available only as a defense and never to support a cause of action,60 con

& K. R. Co., 17 Fed. 871, 873; Cheatham v. Evans, C. C. A., 160 Fed. 802; Wilson v. Plutus Min. Co., C. C. A., 174 Fed. 319; Armstrong Cork Co. v. Merchants' Refrigerating Co., C. C. A., 184 Fed. 199; Newbery v. Wilkinson, 190 Fed. 62; Rodgers v. Thomas, C. C. A., 193 Fed. 952; Updike v. Mace, 194 Fed. 1001; Davis v. Smokeless Fuel Co., C. C. A., 196 Fed. 753; Layton Pure Food Co. v. Church & Dwight Co., C. C. A., 32 L.R.A. (N.S.) 274, 182 Fed. 35; L. Broderick's Will, 21 Wall. 503, 22 L. ed. 599; Pulliam v. Pulliam, 10 Fed. 53; Fogg v. St. Louis, H. & K. R. Co., 17 Fed. 871, 873; Story's Eq. Jur., § 1521. Cf. Scott v. Armstrong, 146 U. S. 499, 36 L. ed. 1059; Security Tr. Co. v. Black River Nat. Bank, 187 U. S. 211, 237, 47 L. ed. 147, 158.

54 Cleveland Ins. Co. v. Reed, 1 Biss. 180; Reeves v. Vinacke, 1 McCrary, 213, 217, per Nelson and Dillon, JJ.

55 Pulliam v. Pulliam, 10 Fed. 53; Broderick's Will, 21 Wall. 503, 22 L. ed. 599; Newbery v. Wilkinson,

190 Fed. 62; Goodno v. Hotchkiss, 237 Fed. 687.

56 Fogg v. St. Louis, H. & K. R. Co., 17 Fed. 871, 873; Story's Eq. Jur., § 1521. Cf. Scott v. Armstrong, 146 U. S. 499, 36 L. ed. 1059; Security Tr. Co. v. Black River Nat. Bank, 187 U. S. 211, 237, 47 L. ed. 147, 158.

57 McIntire v. Pryor, 173 U. S. 38, 43 L. ed. 606; Saxlehner V. Eisner & M. Co., 179 U. S. 19, 45 L. ed. 60; Newberry v. Wilkinson, C. C. A., 199 Fed. 673; Citizens' Sav. & Tr. Co. v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., C. C. A., 182 Fed. 607.

58 Cheatham v. Evans, C. C. A., 160 Fed. 802; Armstrong Cork Co. v. Merchants' Refrigerating Co., C. C. A., 184 Fed. 199; Fordham v. Hicks, 224 Fed. 870; Quinette v. Pullman Co., 229 Fed. 333; City of Memphis, T. v. Board of Directors, 231 Fed. 217; Salyer v. Consolidation Coal Co., C. C. A., 246 Fed. 794.

59 Davis v. Smokeless Fuel Co., C. C. A., 196 Fed. 753.

60 Talbot v. Hill, D. C., C. C. A., 261 Fed. 244.

sequently, the court dismissed a suit to cancel the lien of a deed of trust, when the exercise of the power of sale was barred by the statute.6

61

§ 181a. Suspension of statute of limitations. The statute against Trading with the Enemy provides for a suspension of the Statutes of Limitations to the extent and in the manner described in a preceding section.1

The Antitrust Law provides "Whenever any suit or proceeding in equity or criminal prosecution is instituted by the United States to prevent, restrain or punish violations of any of the antitrust laws, the running of the statute of limitations in respect of each and every private right of action arising under said laws and based in whole or in part on any matter complained of in said suit or proceeding shall be suspended during the pendency thereof." 2

§ 182. Equitable laches. Moreover, the lapse of time for a shorter period than the statute of limitations, and in cases to which that statute does not apply, will often be held such laches as to bar the complainant but very rarely, unless other circumstances than the mere lapse of time make it inequitable to permit the complainant to sue.2

61 Ibid.

§ 181a. 1 Supra, § 1800.

2 Act of Oct. 15, 1914, 38 St. at L. 731, ch. 323, § 5.

§ 182. 1 Brown v. County of Buena Vista, 95 U. S. 157, 161, 24 L. ed. 422, 423. In the following cases amongst others, the doctrine of laches was applied: Town of Essex v. New England Tele. Co. of Mass., 239 U. S. 313; Waller v. Texas & Pac. Ry. Co., 239 U. S. 398; Northrup v. Browne, C. C. A., 204 Fed. 224; Cubbins v. Mississippi River Commission, 204 Fed. 299; Carpenter V. M. J. & M. & M., Consolidated, C. C. A., 212 Fed. 868; Pooler v. Hyne, C. C. A., 213 Fed. 154, 155; Stiles v. Judson, 214 Fed. 811; Christy v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 214 Fed. 1016; Alexander v. Fidelity Trust Co., 215 Fed. 791;

Childs v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co., 221 Fed. 219; Re International Mineral Co., 222 Fed. 415; Mathieson v. Craven, 228 Fed. 345; Fidelity Trust Co. v. Alexander, 243 Fed. 162; Dunscomb v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., C. C. A., 246 Fed. 394; Guenther v. Dennis-Simmons Lumber Co., 246 Fed. 521; Naylor v. Foreman-Blades Lumber Co., 230 Fed. 658; U. S. v. New Orleans Pac. Ry. Co., C. C. A., 235 Fed. 841; Alwood v. Lewis, C. C. A., 254 Fed. 810; Benedict v. City of New York, C. C. A., 247 Fed. 758; Church v. Swetland, C. C. A., 243 Fed. 289; Humphreys v. Walsh, C. C. A., 248 Fed. 414; Stewart v. Florida, G. & W. Ry. Co., C. C. A., 255 Fed. 573.

2 Stewart v. Holland, 179 Fed. 969; Central R. Co. of New Jersey v. Jersey City, 199 Fed. 237; New

It has been said: that when the suit is delayed until after expiration of the statutory time, the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to show such extraordinary circumstance as exclude laches. If previously brought, upon the defendant to show that such extraordinary circumstances exist as to create laches.* Laches by his assignor is binding upon the complainant.5

Ignorance of the defendant's wrong doing is a sufficient excuse for laches; unless the complainant was guilty of inexcusable negligence, or, if there has been no prolonged absence from the jurisdiction or disability, when the facts are notorious such as the operation of a railroad by a well known corporation.8 When at the time of the discovery of a fraud the evidence thereof was slight, delay until more substantial evidence is found should not be considered to be laches.9

It is not laches for a complainant to delay asserting his rights until the determination in another suit, brought by himself or another in a similar position, of a doubtful question of law materially affecting their validity, 10 nor is delay because of

berry v. Wilkinson, C. C. A., 199
Fed. 673; Schwartz v. Loftus, 216
Fed. 320; Parker v. Parker, C. C. A.,
224 Fed. 186; Elder v. Western
Mining Co., C. C. A., 237 Fed. 966;
Kentucky Block Cannel Coal Co. v.
Sewell, C. C. A., 249 Fed. 840;
Sharum v. Whitehead Coal Mining
Co., C. C. A., 223 Fed. 282.

3 McNeil v. McNeil, C. C. A., 170 Fed. 289.

4 Godden v. Kimmel, 99 U. S. 201, 25 L. ed. 431; National Bank v. Carpenter, 101 U. S. 567, 25 L. ed. 815; Wilson v. Plutus Min. Co., C. C. A., 174 Fed. 317; Wisner v. Barnet, 4 Wash. 631. But see Sullivan v. P. & K. R. Co., 94 U. S. 806, 811, 24 L. ed. 324, 326; Doe v. Hyde, 114 U. S. 247, 29 L. ed. 242; Phillippi v. Phillippi, 115 U. S. 151, 29 L. ed. 336.·

5 New York Grape Sugar Co. v. Buffalo Grape Sugar Co., 24 Fed. 604; Woodmanse & Hewitt Manu

10 Buxton v. James, 5 De Gex & Sm. 80, 84; Rumford Chem. Works v. Vice, 14 Blatchf. 179, 180; Green v. Barney, 19 Fed. 420; Hurd v. James Goold Co., 197 Fed. 756; Central R. Co. of New Jersey v. Jersey City, 190 Fed. 237; Jackson Co. v. Gardiner Inv. Co., C. C. A., 200 Fed. 113; Stearns-Roger Mfg. Co. V. Brown, 114 Fed. 939, 945; Tomp

the inability of the owner to bear the expense of the litigation,11 nor, in Porto Rico, a delay warranted by the previous jurisprudence and caused by lack of knowledge of the principles of chancery.12

The United States are not bound by laches, 18 unless equities have arisen through the lapse of time; 14 or where a suit is brought in the name of the United States to enforce the rights of a private person.15 It has been said that the presumption of payment from lapse of time may bar the United States.16

In a stockholder's suit set aside a sale a delay of nine days less than a year was held to be sufficient laches to bar the right of recovery, when in the meanwhile, bonds secured by the purchased property had been issued by the vendee.17 The lapse of time since a decree was entered is no bar to proceedings to punish the violation thereof as a contempt.18 Laches in admiralty is subsequently considered.19

Laches in prosecuting a suit after it is brought may also be taken into consideration.20

kins v. St. Regis Paper Co., C. C. A., 236 Fed. 221; People v. Cooper, 22 Hun (29 N. Y. S. C. R.), 515, 517. See Illinois G. T. Ry. Co. v. Wade, 140 U. S. 65, 35 L. ed. 342.

11 Davis v. A. H. Reid Creamery & Dairy Supply Co., 187 Fed. 157. Contra, dicta in Hayward v. Nat. Bank, 96 U. S. 611, 618, 24 L. ed. 855; Leggett v. Standard Oil Co., 149 U. S. 287, 294, 13 Sup. Ct. 902, 37 L. ed. 737. But see Elder v. West. Min. Co., 237 Fed. 966.

12 Noble v. Gallerdo Y. Leary, 223 U. S. 65, 66 L. ed. 353.

13 Gibson v. Choteau, 13 Wall. 92, 20 L. ed. 534; U. S. v. Thompson, 98 U. S. 486, 25 L. ed. 194. See supra, § 181.

14 U. S. v. Stinson, 197 U. S. 200, 49 L. ed. 724.

15 U. S. v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., C. C. A., 116 Fed. 969; U. S. v. Fletcher, 231 Fed. 326; U. S. v. New Orleans Pac. Ry. Co.,

235 Fed. 841. Cf. U. S. v. Beebe, 127 U. S. 338, 32 L. ed. 121.

16 Chesapeake & Del. Canal Co. v. U. S., C. C. A., 223 Fed. 926, reversed 250 U. S. 123.

17 Bradford v. Betton Motor Co., 105 Fed. 63, aff'd C. C. A., 155 Fed. 711. See Davis v. A. H. Reid Creamery & Dairy Supply Co., 187 Fed. 157, aff'd 197 Fed. 80;

Marks V.

Merril Paper Co., C. C. A., 203 Fed. 16; Kelly v. Dolan, C. C. A., 233 Fed. 635 (12 yrs.), Collens v. Penn Wyoming Copper Co., 203 Fed. 726 (a delay of 21⁄2 yrs.); Weningeh v. Success Min. Co., C. C. A., 227 Fed. 548; Munger v. Perlman Rim Corp., C. C. A., 244 Fed. 799; Tompkins v. St. Regis Paper Co., C. C. A., 236 Fed. 221, 224.

18 Tash v. Western Kentucky Coal Co., C. C. A., 252 Fed. 44.

19 Infra, § 576.

20 Underfeed Stoker Co. v. Am. Stoker Co., 169 Fed. 891; Northrup