Majority
Headnote
Accounting — Statute oe Limitations—Laches.—In February, 1852, one McCain entered into a contract in Pennsylvania with one McFarlane, whereby it was agreed that the former should go to the gold mines in California, engage there in business for a period of eighteen months, or longer, as might be arranged, and at the end of such time, and on his return to Pennsylvania, should give to McFarlane one half of what he might up to that time have made. The contract further provided that if McCain did not return, or died, McFarlane was to be entitled to one half, the same as if he had returned. In 1852, McCann came to California, but did not go to the mines. While there, he acquired certain property, which he owned at the time of his death, in February, 1885. The present action for an accounting was brought on the 1st of May, 1886. Held, by Thornton, J., Paterson, J., and Sharpstein, J., that the action was barred by the statute of limitations, and by Mc-Kinstry, J., and McFarland, J., that the plaintiff and his intestate had lost the right to an aceounting by reason of their laches.The demurrer in this case was properly sustained.
The contract on which the action is based was entered into in February, 1852. This suit was commenced on the 1st of May, 1886.
McCain came to California in 1852, but it does not appear by averment that he ever went to the mines at all; accumulated property, both real and personal, which he had at the time of his death, which occurred in Sacramento in February, 1885.
We think it would be giving an unjustifiable construction to the agreement to hold that McCain, who broke his agreement, and never did go to the mines, or engage in business, in the mining regions, should be held to account to McFarlane for whatever he might make by his labor or industry, exerted elsewhere in California than in the mining regions.
Further, we are of opinion, it not appearing that the period of eighteen months was ever prolonged by agreement, within a reasonable time after the lapse of the period of eighteen months from his arrival in California, McFarlane had a right to call on him for an account, and not having done so, his right to proceed against McCain, under the agreement, has been long since barred by lapse of time.
Let it be conceded that McFarlane had a right, at any time during the years 1855 or 1856, to call on McCain to account. This would have given the former a reasonable time to demand an account of the latter, and upon refusal, to bring his action. The statute would
Concurrence
The judgment should be affirmed.
So ordered.
Paterson, J., and Sharpstein, J., concurred.
Searls, C. J., and Temple, J., concurred in the judgment.
We concur in the judgment, on the ground that the facts set forth in the complaint show such laches, on the part of plaintiff and his intestate, as justified the court below, as a court of equity, in refusing to entertain a suit for an accounting.