Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Holcomb v. Holcomb

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Decided January 7, 1954No. 11767Published

1ConcurrenceWashington, Circuit Judge

I concur in the result, because I think Julia Holcomb is barred by laches. She waited nearly six years before suing on the contract: that is too long. Hurdle v. American Security & Trust Co., 1929, 59 App.D.C. 58, 32 F.2d 954; see Galliher v. Cadwell, 1892, 145 U.S. 368, 12 S.Ct. 873, 36 L.Ed. 738. The general rule is said to be that laches may not be invoked in a suit between spouses. See Note, 121 A.L.R. 1382 (1939). But the reason for the rule — to preserve domestic tranquillity — has no application here. Where spouses have been separated! throughout the entire span of the delay the better…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Galliher v. CadwellSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
  2. Ollman v. OllmanIllinois Supreme Court · 1947
  3. McPherson v. McPhersonWashington Supreme Court · 1939
  4. Reilly v. ReillyCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1950
  5. Gooden v. GoodenOregon Supreme Court · 1947

9 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