Legal Opinion · Dissent

Waller v. Capper

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided January 25, 1936No. 32,575Published

1DissentDawson, J.

On the present ruling on the plea of laches I cannot concur. This court has hitherto recognized that the rights of third parties should not be ignored in disposing of a question of laches. In National Bank v. Walters, 129 Kan. 49, 51, 52, 281 Pac. 868, in considering a plea of laches this court said:

“This court has often held that laches is not a mere matter of time, like limitation, but is a matter of equity, which takes cognizance of all the circumstances, including presence or absence of prejudicial consequences of delay. The following are illustrative cases, and there are many others:…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Harris v. DefenbaughSupreme Court of Kansas · 1910
  2. City of Hutchinson v. HutchinsonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1914
  3. Dusenbery v. BidwellSupreme Court of Kansas · 1912
  4. Osincup v. HenthornSupreme Court of Kansas · 1913
  5. Golden v. ClaudelSupreme Court of Kansas · 1911

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API