856 PKDERi.L REPORTEE. �assets of bankrupt estates, not for the benefit of the estates of the bankrupts, or in the proper and orderly administra- tion thereof, but for his own benefit, and for the benefit of persons seeking to avail themselves of such preteuded titles for purposes of litigation. While ail the interests so dis- posed of were declared to be, and probably were, of no v^luo whatever to the estates to which they were claimed to belong, the applieants paid very considerable snms in fees and chargea of the assignee, for examinations into the facts certified to the court as made, but, in reality, not made at ail, and for pretended counsel fees. The applieants, therefore, had an interest to subserve of some value, in their own estimation, in making these purchases. �The puriîhaser, Hunt, in this case, was a mere agent of the respondent, Chapnian. And Chapman's motive in buying up these possible interests was to base upon them claims, to be prosecuted by litigation against parties in possession of the property. And in Mareh, 1862, he commenced an action against Mr. Ogden, based on these deeds, as above stated. �The use that has thus been made of this court to proraote litigation is highly improper and scandalous. And as the deeds made by the assignee were clearly such as the court had no right to authorize, there is no good reason why the petitioners should be remitted to their defence in that action for the purpose of showing there the invalidity of the deeds, or why the respondent should retain the unjust advantage which the possession of the deeds, given under the apparent authbrity of this court, confers upon him. �It is, however, insisted that it is now too late to have the deeds set aside; that application therefor should bave been made at once on the diseovery by Mr. Ogden of the claim made under them. When a transaction inter partes is sought to be annulled for fraud great diligence is often neeessary, and delay, with knowledge of one's rights, will be deemed aoquiescenoe, especially where the delay has occa- sioned a change in the position of the parties relativoly to the subject of the contract. The doctrine of laches thus applied is very familiar. The present, however, is not a ����
