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
- Harris v. DefenbaughSupreme Court of Kansas · 1910
- City of Hutchinson v. HutchinsonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1914
- Dusenbery v. BidwellSupreme Court of Kansas · 1912
- Osincup v. HenthornSupreme Court of Kansas · 1913
- Golden v. ClaudelSupreme Court of Kansas · 1911
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.