0S2 F£DERAL BBPOBTSH, �the sale of a slave by the administrator alleged to have been made to himself, more than ten years after the sale was made, it was held to have been brought too late, the widow having been 10 years sui juris, and the daughter four years through mamage; the delay being unreasonable. �In Hough v. Coughlan, 41 111. 131, there had been a con- tract by bond for the conveyance of land, and after 12 years a bill was brought for specifie performance, and the court held that there had been unreasonable delay: "That great delay of either party unexplained, in not performing the terms of a contract, or in not prosecuting his rights under it by filing a bill, or in not prosecuting his suit with diligence when instituted, constituted such laches as would forbid the interference of a court of equity." �In Mitchell v. Berry, 1 Met. (Ky.) 619, it was held, where a cestuî que trust desires to avoid a sale of his estate, at which the trustee has become the purchaser, he must apply to chan- cery in a reasonable time after he had knowledge of the f acts which impeach the sale, or he will be presumed to have aequiesced, and that reasonable time depends upon the cir- cumstanoes of the case, and the discretion of the court. In the particular case before the court an acquiescence of 12 years was held sufficient to disable the parties from coming into a court of equity. �In Davison v. Jersey Co. 71 N. Y. 333, there had been a contract for building bouses by May 1, 1859, and for purchase and deeds. Suit was brought for specifie performance in 1S64:, and it was held that the rights of complainant were, under the circumstances of that case, forfeited by laches. �In The State v. West, 68 Mo, 229, the testator of defend- ants, having boughfc certain land in his owu name at a sale made by order of the county court, on the twenty-third day of April, 1873, to satisfy a school mortgage, on the twentieth day of September, 1873, resold it at an advance, and on the second day of January, 1874, died, The county court knew of the purchase by the deceased soon after it was made. On the eighteenth day of June, 1874, 15 months after the pur- chass, the county court brought suit to recover of defendants ����
