delay of thirty years in instituting action grossly unreasonable so as to lessen defendant’s burden of proving prejudice
How later courts described this case
- delay of thirty years in instituting action grossly unreasonable so as to lessen defendant’s burden of proving prejudice
- delay of 30 years in instituting action grossly unreasonable so as to lessen burden of proving prejudice
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice Cohen :
The meager authority upon which the majority bases its conclusion that laches is applicable does not satisfy me. It introduces into our law of property a new concept, namely, that one may obtain title to real *124 ty on the weakness of the titleholder’s claim rather than on the strength of his own.
In Pennsylvania, the Implied-Trust Doctrine places the title of this real estate in the congregation that organized the church. I know of no theory of laches that is applicable to such a situation so as to divest from ownership those in whom title is vested.
Further, in this instance, prejudice, which is an ingredient of laches, has not been shown; neither has adverse possession — which might be applicable — been alleged.
Since the record does not disclose facts which would permit the application of laches, and since it does disclose facts which would indicate adverse possession, I would apply the Implied-Trust Doctrine and reverse the decree.
I dissent.