678 FEDEBAIi BEFOBTBS. �ment AH investraents în them have been irrevocably decided to be void, as having been made "in aid of the rebellion." �It is not charged, however, that there was, on the part oî the deceased trustee, any fraudaient motive or intention, inoral or political, in making the investments. There is no element or charge of'fraud, actual or construetive, in the present ease; and so the only question is one of liability for a well-intended but illegal act. Nor can it be denied that the estate is liable for these investments, unless it has been absolved by the bar of the statutes of Imitations, or by the loches of the complainant and petitioners in this suit, or by their acquiescence so long as to render the enforcement of their demands, at this late day, derogatory to the rights, interests, or equities of others, which have resulted from that protracted acquiescence. �As to the statutes of limitations I do not think they affect this case, either directly or by analogy. In general, equity merely follows the analogies of the law in respect to limita- tions. A court of equity is bound to apply the statute only in cases where the courts of law and eqiiity would have concur- rent jurisdiction ; that is to say, where the complainant might have gone into a court of law with his cause instead of com- ing into chanoery. "In such cases courts of equity consider themselves within the spirit of the statute and act in obedience to it; but, in the consideration of purely equitable rights and titles, they act in analogy to the statute, but are not bound by it." Hall v. Russell, 3 Saw. 515. "In ail cases of concur- rent jurisdiction, at law and in equity, statutes of limitations seem equally obligatory in each court ; and courts of equity do not act so much in analogy to the statutes as in obedience to them." 2 Story's Eq. Jur. 1520. In a great variety of other cases, however, courts of equity act only upon the analogy of the limitations at law, and not in obedience to the statutes. A leading and very instructive case on this subject is Haven- den V. Lord Annesley, 2 Sch. & Lefroy, 629 et seq, �There is also still another class of cases in whioh equity courts disregard both the statutes of limitations and tha ����
