Syfert Injury Law Firm
Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448Equity gives no relief to one whose long delay renders the ascertainment of the truth difficult, even when no legal limitation bars the right.
(Orig. Code 1863, § 3027; Code 1868, § 3039; Code 1873, § 3094; Code 1882, § 3094; Civil Code 1895, § 3939; Civil Code 1910, § 4536; Code 1933, § 37-119.)
- Authority of courts of equity to interpose equitable bar owing to lapse of time and laches of complainant, § 9-3-3.
Tolling of limitations due to fraud of defendant or those under whom he claims, § 9-3-96.
The equitable doctrine of laches is not applicable to suits at law. Columbus Bank & Trust Co. v. Dempsey, 120 Ga. App. 5, 169 S.E.2d 349 (1969).
Equity will relieve against mutual mistake, but only at the instance of a complainant who moves with reasonable diligence. What is a reasonable time must necessarily depend upon the peculiar facts and environments of the particular case. Parker v. Fisher, 207 Ga. 3, 59 S.E.2d 715 (1950).
And if both parties are equally to blame for delay, neither should be allowed to invoke the rule of laches in order to gain advantage over his adversary. City of McRae v. Folsom, 191 Ga. 272, 11 S.E.2d 900 (1940); Davis v. Newton, 217 Ga. 75, 121 S.E.2d 153 (1961).
Generally, doctrine of laches will be invoked only when there will be prejudice to a party's position. Ansley Park Plumbing & Heating Co. v. Mikart, Inc., 9 Bankr. 144 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1981).
- Trial court did not err in refusing to deny property owners' petition to quiet title due to laches because the owners acquired their property on April 21, 2000, and over the next several years, the owners made repeated requests to adjoining landowners to stop using the street for anything other than access from the owners' driveways to the highway, but the adjoining landowners refused; the adjoining landowners identified no change in circumstance during the intervening years that would qualify as prejudice. Goodson v. Ford, 290 Ga. 662, 725 S.E.2d 229 (2012).
- Judgment forgiving a father's child support arrearage based on the mother's delay in making the claim was reversed because laches does not apply to claims for uncollected child support and the dormancy statute, O.C.G.A. § 9-12-60(a), did not apply to child support orders entered after July 1, 1997, such as the one involved in the case. Wynn v. Craven, 301 Ga. 30, 799 S.E.2d 172 (2017).
Cited in Griffin v. Haden, 172 Ga. 478, 157 S.E. 686 (1931); Freeney v. Pape, 185 Ga. 1, 194 S.E. 515 (1937); Kinney v. Mayor of Milledgeville, 185 Ga. 866, 196 S.E. 467 (1938); Wright v. City of Metter, 192 Ga. 75, 14 S.E.2d 443 (1941); Miller v. Everett, 192 Ga. 26, 14 S.E.2d 449 (1941); Grant v. Hart, 192 Ga. 153, 14 S.E.2d 860 (1941); Gunby v. Turner, 194 Ga. 378, 21 S.E.2d 640 (1942); Lankford v. Holton, 195 Ga. 317, 24 S.E.2d 292 (1943); Williams v. Porter, 202 Ga. 113, 42 S.E.2d 475 (1947); Larkins v. Boyd, 205 Ga. 69, 52 S.E.2d 307 (1949); Calhoun County v. Early County, 205 Ga. 169, 52 S.E.2d 854 (1949); Gay v. Radford, 207 Ga. 38, 59 S.E.2d 915 (1950); Flannagan v. Clark, 207 Ga. 345, 61 S.E.2d 485 (1950); Barron v. Darden, 207 Ga. 350, 61 S.E.2d 497 (1950); Vinson v. Citizens & S. Nat'l Bank, 208 Ga. 813, 69 S.E.2d 866 (1952); Todd v. Bivins, 215 Ga. 402, 110 S.E.2d 768 (1959); Consumers Fin. Corp. v. Lamb, 218 Ga. 343, 127 S.E.2d 914 (1962); Fuller v. Fuller, 107 Ga. App. 429, 130 S.E.2d 520 (1963); Blackstock v. Murphy, 220 Ga. 661, 140 S.E.2d 902 (1965); Brown v. Granite Holding Corp., 221 Ga. 560, 146 S.E.2d 289 (1965); Fuller v. McBurrows, 229 Ga. 422, 192 S.E.2d 144 (1972); Gauker v. Eubanks, 230 Ga. 893, 199 S.E.2d 771 (1973); Sikes v. Sikes, 231 Ga. 105, 200 S.E.2d 259 (1973); Wilson v. Passmore, 240 Ga. 716, 242 S.E.2d 124 (1978); Sakas v. Jessee, 202 Ga. App. 838, 415 S.E.2d 670 (1992); Troup v. Loden, 266 Ga. 650, 469 S.E.2d 664 (1996); Hall v. Trubey, 269 Ga. 197, 498 S.E.2d 258 (1998); City of Duluth v. Riverbrooke Properties, Inc., 233 Ga. App. 46, 502 S.E.2d 806 (1998); Parker v. Shreve, 244 Ga. App. 350, 535 S.E.2d 332 (2000).
There is no principle of equity sounder, more conservative and more prolific, in all the fruits of peace, than this: that he who slumbers over his rights, with no impediment to his asserting them, until the evidence upon which a counterclaim is founded, may from lapse of time, be presumed to be lost; until the generation cognizant of the transactions between the parties, has passed away, and until original actors are in their graves, and their affairs are left to representatives - the law, in the exercise of an equitable sovereignty, presumes it to be unjust, that under such circumstances, a complainant should be heard; and in nine cases out of ten, it is unjust in fact, as well as in theory. The principle upon which courts of equity proceed in such cases, is, that the lateness of the demand, arising from lapse of time, is presumptive evidence against its justice. Welch v. Welch, 215 Ga. 198, 109 S.E.2d 757 (1959).
Equity will not aid in the enforcement of stale demands. Cannon v. Fulton Nat'l Bank, 206 Ga. 609, 57 S.E.2d 917 (1950); Phillips v. Hayes, 212 Ga. 148, 81 S.E.2d 19 (1956); Welch v. Welch, 215 Ga. 198, 109 S.E.2d 757 (1959).
Defendant's suit is properly barred by laches when defendant's claim of a resulting trust in a house is based on payments made 35 years ago to a person who is the sole record owner and is now dead. Stone v. Williams, 265 Ga. 480, 458 S.E.2d 343 (1995).
The rule that equity will not aid in the enforcement of stale demands applies to accounts. Cannon v. Fulton Nat'l Bank, 206 Ga. 609, 57 S.E.2d 917 (1950).
In a suit to rescind the sale of land, the plaintiff's voluntary failure to bring suit for three years after being fully cognizant of the fraud committed seven years prior thereto is such laches as will bar his action. Hillis v. Clark, 222 Ga. 604, 150 S.E.2d 922 (1966).
Where no legal redemption of the land is alleged, or claimed, but the redemption is entirely an equitable one, persons claiming thereunder must assert their equitable demands within a reasonable time, for since equity rewards the vigilant, not the slothful, where the delay is such as to render the ascertainment of the truth difficult, equity will give no relief. Slade v. Barber, 200 Ga. 405, 37 S.E.2d 143 (1946).
Even after the dissolution of a partnership, the statute of limitations does not begin to run in favor of one partner against another until the partnership affairs, as to debtors and creditors of the firm, have been wound up and settled, or, at least, a sufficient time has elapsed since the dissolution to raise the presumption that such was the fact, nor, while there are outstanding assets and liabilities, will a partner be barred as against his copartner, on the principle of stale demands. Powell v. Powell, 171 Ga. 840, 156 S.E. 677 (1931), later appeal, 179 Ga. 817, 177 S.E. 566 (1934).
There is no absolute rule as to what constitutes laches or staleness of demand, and no one decision constitutes a precedent in the strict sense for another. Each case is to be determined according to its own particular circumstances. Laches is not, like limitations, a mere matter of time, but principally a question of the inequity of permitting the claim to be enforced, an inequity founded on some intermediate change in conditions. Bleckley v. Bleckley, 189 Ga. 47, 5 S.E.2d 206 (1939); Yablon v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 200 Ga. 693, 38 S.E.2d 534 (1946).
Laches is not, like limitations, a mere matter of time. but is principally a question of the inequity of permitting the claim to be enforced, an inequity founded on some intermediate change in conditions. Cooper v. Aycock, 199 Ga. 658, 34 S.E.2d 895 (1945).
Mere lapse of time is usually insufficient to activate the doctrine of laches. Ansley Park Plumbing & Heating Co. v. Mikart, Inc., 9 Bankr. 144 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1981).
And in determining whether there has been laches, there are various things to be considered, notably the duration of the delay in asserting the claim, and the sufficiency of the excuse offered in extenuation of the delay, whether plaintiff acquiesced in the assertion or operation of the corresponding adverse claim, the character of the evidence by which plaintiff's right is sought to be established, whether during the delay the evidence of the matters in dispute has been lost or become obscured or the conditions have so changed as to render the enforcement of the right inequitable, whether third persons have acquired intervening rights. Citizens' & S. Nat'l Bank v. Ellis, 171 Ga. 717, 156 S.E. 603 (1931); Johnson v. Sears, 199 Ga. 432, 34 S.E.2d 541 (1945); Cooper v. Aycock, 199 Ga. 658, 34 S.E.2d 895 (1945); Parker v. Fisher, 207 Ga. 3, 59 S.E.2d 715 (1950); Welch v. Welch, 215 Ga. 198, 109 S.E.2d 757 (1959); Erhart v. Brooks, 231 Ga. 272, 201 S.E.2d 464 (1973).
Delay in bringing suit must not be such as to preclude the court from arriving at a safe conclusion as to the truth of the matters in controversy, and thus make the doing of equity either doubtful or impossible, due to loss or obscuration of evidence of the transaction in issue, or where the lapse of time has been sufficient to create or justify a presumption that, if the plaintiff was ever possessed of a right, it had been abandoned, waived, or satisfied. Citizens' & S. Nat'l Bank v. Ellis, 171 Ga. 717, 156 S.E. 603 (1931); Flemister v. Billups, 202 Ga. 132, 42 S.E.2d 376 (1947); Welch v. Welch, 215 Ga. 198, 109 S.E.2d 757 (1959).
While most frequently the bar of laches is applied in instances where the long delay has rendered the ascertainment of the truth difficult, the doctrine does not rest on that premise alone. Johnson v. Sears, 199 Ga. 432, 34 S.E.2d 541 (1945).
An unreasonable delay until the death of essential witnesses, which practically precludes the court from arriving at a safe conclusion as to the truth of the matters in controversy, and which make the doing of equity either doubtful or impossible, due to loss or obscuration of evidence of the transaction in issue, will bar the action. Stephens v. Walker, 193 Ga. 330, 18 S.E.2d 537 (1942).
While most frequently the bar of laches is applied in instances where the long delay has rendered the ascertainment of the truth difficult, the doctrine does not rest on that premise alone. Bryan v. Willingham-Little Stone Co., 194 Ga. 563, 22 S.E.2d 40 (1942).
Petition showing affirmatively that the plaintiffs were guilty of laches in not seeking for 18 years the cancellation of deeds conveying property in their mother's estate was properly dismissed on general demurrer (now motion to dismiss). Johnson v. Sears, 199 Ga. 432, 34 S.E.2d 541 (1945).
A delay of 40 years or more, and the death of essential witnesses, when the truth of matters in controversy cannot be fairly established, makes the doing of equity either doubtful or impossible, and will bar the action. Slade v. Barber, 200 Ga. 405, 37 S.E.2d 143 (1946).
Death of essential witnesses, which may preclude the court from arriving at a safe conclusion as to the truth of matters in controversy, and which makes the doing of equity doubtful or impossible, will bar the action. Whitfield v. Whitfield, 204 Ga. 64, 48 S.E.2d 852 (1948).
To charge a party with laches in delaying to assert a right, an opportunity to have acted sooner must have existed; if he acted at the first possible opportunity, he is not culpable. Cooper v. Aycock, 199 Ga. 658, 34 S.E.2d 895 (1945).
In a suit to cancel a deed on the ground of the grantor's insanity, when no reason appeared why the plaintiffs did not know, or by the slightest diligence could not have known, of the substantial facts, so as to bring the suit within a reasonable time after the deed was executed and after the grantor's death, the action was properly dismissed on demurrer (now motion to dismiss) on the ground that it was stale and that the plaintiffs were in laches. Hillis v. Clark, 222 Ga. 604, 150 S.E.2d 922 (1966).
To prevail on a plea of laches, it is essential that the pleading party prove harm caused him by the delay. Clover Realty Co. v. J.L. Todd Auction Co., 240 Ga. 124, 239 S.E.2d 682 (1977).
The defendant's plea of laches in a suit brought to enjoin the defendant from extending a parking area onto land zoned for single family dwellings, cannot be sustained, where no facts are alleged to show any prejudice to the defendant, or that the ascertainment of the truth is made more difficult by any delay on the part of the plaintiffs to immediately seek relief against the defendant for the unlawful use of his property. Palmer v. Tomlinson, 217 Ga. 399, 122 S.E.2d 578 (1961).
Delay alone is never enough to show laches where there is an applicable statute of limitations. Clover Realty Co. v. J.L. Todd Auction Co., 240 Ga. 124, 239 S.E.2d 682 (1977).
And a delay is excusable when it was induced by the adverse party; he cannot take advantage of a delay which he himself has caused or to which he has contributed. City of McRae v. Folsom, 191 Ga. 272, 11 S.E.2d 900 (1940).
- Former wife was not entitled to impose a constructive trust on her former husband's military pension pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 53-12-132 because she failed to object to the absence of any provision for the pension in their divorce decree for 12 years and failed to bring suit until 5 years after payments allegedly became due. Davis v. Davis, 310 Ga. App. 512, 713 S.E.2d 694 (2011).
Laches is not, like limitations, a mere matter of time, but principally a question of the inequity of permitting the claim to be enforced, an inequity founded on some intermediate change in conditions. Yablon v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 200 Ga. 693, 38 S.E.2d 534 (1946); Whitfield v. Whitfield, 204 Ga. 64, 48 S.E.2d 852 (1948).
Laches does not arise from mere lapse of time. Columbus Bank & Trust Co. v. Dempsey, 120 Ga. App. 5, 169 S.E.2d 349 (1969).
And in fixing the time when the bar of laches may be interposed, the court does not measure altogether by the lapse of time, because this section declares that: "Equity gives no relief to one whose long delay renders the ascertainment of the truth difficult, though no legal limitation bars the right." Bass v. Mayor of Milledgeville, 180 Ga. 156, 178 S.E. 529 (1934), appeal dismissed, 295 U.S. 721, 55 S. Ct. 926, 79 L. Ed. 1675 (1935).
Laches is an equitable doctrine which is independent of the statute of limitations, and as to the lapse of time necessary for invoking the doctrine of laches, such time may or may not correspond with the time specified in the statute of limitations. Prudential Ins. Co. v. Sailors, 69 Ga. App. 628, 26 S.E.2d 557 (1943); Johnson v. Sears, 199 Ga. 432, 34 S.E.2d 541 (1945).
- While the equitable doctrine of laches operates independently of any statute of limitations, courts of equity usually act in obedience and in analogy to the statutes of limitations, in cases where it would not be unjust and inequitable to do so. Cooper v. Aycock, 199 Ga. 658, 34 S.E.2d 895 (1945).
Lapse of time is an important element of laches; yet, unless a case falls within the operation of a statute of limitations, there is no fixed period within which a person must assert his claim or be barred by laches; the length of time depends on the circumstances of the particular case. Cooper v. Aycock, 199 Ga. 658, 34 S.E.2d 895 (1945).
The period from which laches is determined is fixed in equity cases according to the circumstances of each case. Bryan v. Willingham-Little Stone Co., 194 Ga. 563, 22 S.E.2d 40 (1942).
The doctrine of laches not only forbids relief to one whose long delay renders the ascertainment of truth difficult, though no legal limitation bars the right, but also authorizes equity to interpose an equitable bar, whenever, from the lapse of time and laches of the complainant, it would be inequitable to allow a party to enforce his legal rights. Goodwin v. First Baptist Church, 225 Ga. 448, 169 S.E.2d 334 (1969), later appeal, 226 Ga. 524, 175 S.E.2d 868 (1970).
In an equitable suit to obtain possession of lands, under a rule analogous to the rule of law permitting title by adverse possession to be acquired in seven years under color of title, claimants would be barred after such time by their laches. Slade v. Barber, 200 Ga. 405, 37 S.E.2d 143 (1946).
On an equitable petition seeking merely a cancellation of a deed, although "equity follows the analogy of the law" in allowing the seven-year period of limitation, this time is permitted only if there are no special circumstances demanding an earlier application, and where such circumstances exist, calling for an interposition of the equitable doctrine of laches, equity will refuse relief to one whose long delay renders the ascertainment of the truth difficult, though no legal limitation bars the right. Stephens v. Walker, 193 Ga. 330, 18 S.E.2d 537 (1942).
The rules of limitation do not apply if the defendant, or those under whom he claims, has been guilty of a fraud by which the plaintiff shall have been debarred or deterred from his action. In such a case the period of limitation shall run only from the time of the discovery of the fraud, and equity applies a similar rule as to laches. Stephens v. Walker, 193 Ga. 330, 18 S.E.2d 537 (1942).
The statute of limitations is a statute of repose. When a person is defrauded, and has knowledge of the fraud, he must ask redress, if at all, within the period of limitation. If he waits for a longer period, he is bound by his laches. Slade v. Barber, 200 Ga. 405, 37 S.E.2d 143 (1946).
Fraud, which should have been discovered if usual and reasonable diligence had been exercised, is not a good reply to the statute of limitations. Slade v. Barber, 200 Ga. 405, 37 S.E.2d 143 (1946).
- It is necessary that the complainant show, by specifications, wherein the fraud consists in order to prevent the application of laches against him. Issuable facts must be charged. Welch v. Welch, 215 Ga. 198, 109 S.E.2d 757 (1959).
- Period of the delay in bringing suit to decide if it is barred by laches is measured from the time the cause of action was possessed by the party charged with laches or his privies. Chapman v. McClelland, 248 Ga. 725, 286 S.E.2d 290 (1982).
- A petition is not demurrable (now subject to motion to dismiss) on the ground of laches on the part of the petitioner, where nothing in the petition authorizes the inference that there was any delay on the petitioner's part, suit being brought within the statute of limitations, which rendered the ascertainment of the truth more difficult, or in any way hindered the defendant city in making its defense. Vickers v. City of Fitzgerald, 216 Ga. 476, 117 S.E.2d 316 (1960), overruled on other grounds, City of Chamblee v. Maxwell, 264 Ga. 635, 452 S.E.2d 488 (1994).
Laches is an equitable defense, and a petition for equitable relief is not subject to demurrer (now motion to dismiss) on the ground of laches unless the allegations of fact affirmatively show such defense. Henderson v. Henderson, 219 Ga. 310, 133 S.E.2d 251 (1963).
- Where the petition affirmatively shows that there has been unusual and unreasonable delay in bringing the action, it is incumbent upon the plaintiffs to show that they were not guilty of laches. Hillis v. Clark, 222 Ga. 604, 150 S.E.2d 922 (1966).
It is incumbent on the plaintiff, in order to repel the presumption of unreasonable delay, to allege in his petition the impediments to an earlier prosecution of his claim. Parker v. Fisher, 207 Ga. 3, 59 S.E.2d 715 (1950).
Where it cannot be said as a matter of law that the plaintiff was dilatory in asserting his claim, then the defense of laches is a question for the jury and summary judgment cannot be granted the defendant on the issue. Davidson Mineral Properties, Inc. v. Gifford-Hill & Co., 235 Ga. 176, 219 S.E.2d 133 (1975).
- Supreme Court of Georgia concluded that case law supporting that a mandamus action can be barred by gross laches is the correct rule; thus, Crow v. McCallum, 215 Ga. 692, 696 (113 S.E. 203) (1960), and its progeny, were wrongly decided and overruled. Marsh v. Clarke County Sch. Dist., 292 Ga. 28, 732 S.E.2d 443 (2012).
A plaintiff's right to recover his share of the remainder estate is a plain statutory right not subject to the bar of laches. Perkins v. First Nat'l Bank, 221 Ga. 82, 143 S.E.2d 474 (1965).
One in possession of land is not chargeable with laches in failing to bring suit to cancel deeds. Marietta Realty & Dev. Co. v. Reynolds, 189 Ga. 147, 5 S.E.2d 347 (1939); Davis v. Newton, 217 Ga. 75, 121 S.E.2d 153 (1961).
One who is in possession of property under a claim of ownership will not be guilty of laches for delay in resorting to a court of equity to establish his rights. Davis v. Newton, 215 Ga. 58, 108 S.E.2d 809 (1959).
- Trial court's denial of a decedent's father's motion for partial summary judgment pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-11-56 in an action against the decedent's mother and the estate administrator was proper, because the defense of laches under O.C.G.A. § 23-1-25 was appropriate in defense of the father's request for imposition of a constructive trust on an annuity that was purchased with the wrongful death settlement proceeds, and the defense of advice of counsel under O.C.G.A. § 15-19-17 against the father's claim of breach of fiduciary duty was relevant to the mother's state of mind. Rhone v. Bolden, 270 Ga. App. 712, 608 S.E.2d 22 (2004).
- 27 Am. Jur. 2d, Equity, §§ 93, 152-156, 159-176.
- 30 C.J.S., Equity, § 100. 31 C.J.S., Equity, § 113 et seq.
- Laches as affecting right of corporation or its stockholders to relief against directors for violations of trust, 10 A.L.R. 370.
Laches as preventing recovery of property diverted from one religious sect or denomination to another, 18 A.L.R. 692.
Check in payment of interest or installment of principal as tolling statute of limitations, 28 A.L.R. 84, 125 A.L.R. 271.
Institution of suit as relieving one of charge of laches precluding relief in equity, 43 A.L.R. 921.
Effect of recovery of judgment on unfiled or abandoned claim after expiration of time allowed for filing claim against estate, 60 A.L.R. 736.
What amounts to laches or delay on part of wife or widow in attacking antenuptial settlement which will prevent relief, 74 A.L.R. 559.
Right to equitable relief from usury as affected by laches, 111 A.L.R. 126.
Applicability of statute of limitations or doctrine of laches as between husband and wife, 121 A.L.R. 1382.
Statute of limitations or presumption of payment from lapse of time as ground for affirmative relief from debt or lien, 164 A.L.R. 1387.
Workers' compensation: time and jurisdiction for review, reopening, modification, or reinstatement of award or agreement, 165 A.L.R. 9.
Pleading laches, 173 A.L.R. 326.
Delay of stockholders in exercising their right to convert their stock into other class of stock or corporate obligation, 10 A.L.R.2d 587.
Laches or delay in bringing suit as affecting right to enforce restrictive building covenant, 25 A.L.R.5th 233.
Applicability of statute of limitations or laches to quo warranto proceedings, 26 A.L.R.2d 828.
Laches as precluding cancellation of or other relief against release for personal injuries, 34 A.L.R.2d 1314.
What constitutes sufficient repudiation of express trust by trustee to cause statute of limitations to run, 54 A.L.R.2d 13.
Delay in asserting contractual right to arbitration as precluding enforcement thereof, 25 A.L.R.3d 1171.
Estoppel or laches precluding lawful spouse from asserting rights in decedent's estate as against putative spouse, 81 A.L.R.3d 110.
Applicability of statute of limitations or doctrine of laches to proceeding to revoke or suspend license to practice medicine, 51 A.L.R.4th 1147.
Total Results: 9
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2017-04-17
Citation: 301 Ga. 30, 799 S.E.2d 172, 2017 WL 1374766, 2017 Ga. LEXIS 240
Snippet: OCGA § 9-3-3 (emphasis supplied); see also OCGA § 23-1-25. But Mother was not asserting her right to child
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2012-10-15
Citation: 292 Ga. 28, 732 S.E.2d 443, 2012 Fulton County D. Rep. 3154, 2012 WL 4857212, 2012 Ga. LEXIS 791
Snippet: Ga. 757, 758 (171 SE2d 505) (1969). OCGA § 23-1-25. Crow cites Wood v. City Board of Plumbing Examiners
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2012-03-05
Citation: 290 Ga. 662, 725 S.E.2d 229, 2012 Fulton County D. Rep. 735, 2012 Ga. LEXIS 254
Snippet: SE2d 267) (2011) (citations omitted). See OCGA § 23-1-25 (“Equity gives no relief to one whose long delay
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2011-11-21
Citation: 718 S.E.2d 237, 290 Ga. 95, 2011 Fulton County D. Rep. 3631, 2011 Ga. LEXIS 932
Snippet: and to relieve against forfeitures.” • OCGA § 23-1-25 — “Equity gives no relief to one whose long delay
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1998-02-23
Citation: 498 S.E.2d 258, 269 Ga. 197
Snippet: homes on land in Putnam County. See OCGA §§ 9-3-3; 23-1-25. The cross-appeal is defendant Trubey's challenge
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1997-01-21
Citation: 479 S.E.2d 722, 267 Ga. 456, 97 Fulton County D. Rep. 209, 1997 Ga. LEXIS 16
Snippet: been impeded by the delay in this case, OCGA § 23-1-25; and as to equitable estoppel, the record reveals
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1996-05-06
Citation: 469 S.E.2d 664, 266 Ga. 650, 96 Fulton County D. Rep. 1603, 1996 Ga. LEXIS 225
Snippet: Justices concur. NOTES [1] See OCGA §§ 9-3-3; 23-1-25. [2] Johnson v. Sears, 199 Ga. 432, 435, 34 S
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1995-06-26
Citation: 458 S.E.2d 343, 265 Ga. 480
Snippet: the truth difficult, if not impossible. OCGA § 23-1-25. Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1989-03-02
Citation: 376 S.E.2d 872, 259 Ga. 119, 1989 Ga. LEXIS 100
Snippet: limitation bars the right. [Emphasis supplied.] OCGA § 23-1-25. The ascertainment of the truth is not difficult