Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/699

%Tmta Vi uiBX*B BXXC0TOB. -685 �of those rights now wôuld produce hardship and injustîoe to third persons. �Perry says, (see 2 Trusts, § 870 :) "Acquiescence in a trans- action may bar a party of his relief in a very short time. If one bas knowledge of an act, or it is done with his full appro- bation, he cannot afterwards bave relief. He is estopped by his acquiescence, and cannot undo tiiat which bas beendone." He cites the English cases of Kent v. Jackson, 14 Beavan, 384; Styles v. Guy, 1 Hall & Twells, 523 ; and Ex parte Mor- gan, 1 Hall & Twells, 328, which I bave not been able to con- sult. �In the case of Graham v. Railroad Co. 2 McNaughton & Gordon, 156, 158, Lord Cottenham, refusing relief after an acquiescence of only 18 months, said that the question was whether the equity set up by the complainant was not counter- acted by a counter equity on the otber side ; "for in many cases the interposition of the court may produce the greatest possible injustice if the parties bave not applied in time, but bave per- mitted tbings toget inthàt stàte which makes the injunction asked for not only a proceeding not enforcing an equity, but calculated to inflict great hardship and injustice." And in an- otber place, in the same case, he says: "If those who bave the management of the affairs of others depart from the reg- ular course, and there is an acquiescence, the parties inter- ested who bave so aequiesced cannot complain." �It being, therefore, a settled doctrine of equity jurispru- dence that men may bar themselves of equitable rights by sueh acquiescence, as, if those equities were enforced, -would injuriously affect the interests or rights or equities of third per- sons, it is obvions that this acquiescence and its results must be considered by a court of equity with no reference to the arbitrary periods established as bars to suits by statutes of limitations ; and, as to such cases, nothing could be more mistaken than the remark of the dissenting judge in the Mis- souri case of The State y. West, that to apply the doctrine in a case where there was an acquiescence for only 15 months, aa that was, "would be going far beyond any decision ever made in England or America." ����