Majority
p. 703Ann Duffy et al., App’lts, v. Michael Duffy, Resp’t.[1] (Court of Appeals, Filed December 3, 1889.)
Headnote
Abatement and revivor—Laches.A delay of eleven years after the death of plaintiff, who had begun the action fourteen.years before, constiiutes such loches that the court, in its discretion, could deny a motion by the heirs for revivor and continuance-in their names.
This action was begun in September, 1863, in the New York superior court, to have a certain deed set aside as fraudulent. In 1877, Ann Duffy, the plaintiff, died while the action was still pending. Since that time nothing was done until August, 1888, when the appellants, as successors in interest, moved to have the action revived and continued, which motion was denied, and on-appeal to the general term the order was affirmed.
Chas. P. Cowles, for app’lts; H. B. Closson, for resp’t.
The laches in this case was so great that the court, in the exercise of its discretion, could deny the motion, and for this conclusion the cases of Coit v. Campbell, 82 N. Y., 509 ; Lyon v. Park, 111 id., 350; 19 N. Y. State Rep., 626, and Matter of Palmer, 115 N. Y., 493 ; 26 N. Y. State Rep., 338, are ample authorities.
p. 704
There is, therefore, nothing for us to review, and the appeal should be dismissed, with costs.
All concur.