ETTIKS V. UABX'S EXEOUTOB. 687 �time, and their collection was stayed no longer tlian the first of January, 1869 ; eight years and a month before tbis suit was brought. Suits might have been brought in this court at any time after 1865. Certainly an acquiescence of more than 11 years in the action of this trustee, accompanied by such assurances as those given eight years before death by Frank M. Etting, in his letters of March and July, 1869, which have been quoted, and by results in the iform of new debts incurred afterwards to the amount of $5,000, which are hopeless of payment, if the demands of the complainant and petitioners are allowed, would seem sufScient to bring the case within the doctrine of the Iobs of equities by acquiescence. �As may be inferred from the foregoing, I do not agree with counsel for complainants in thie proposition that Mrs. Etting was barred from suing by coverture, or that the complainants were barred from suing by being otherwise not suijuris. �In Harrison v. Gihson, 23 Grat. 212, it was held that though a bill by husband and wife in right of the wife is the bill of the husband, and the wife is only joined for conformity, yet the coverture of the wife is not therefore an excuse for delay in bringing suit; and it was also held that though a delay of 14 years after a right has accrued does not create a statutory bar, it will, in connection with other circumstances, be very persuasive against the justice of the claim, which the court in that instance refused to sustain. �I think the bill and petitions must be dismissed. I will 80 decree. �NoTB. There was no appeal in this case, the complainants acquiescing in the decision of the court. ����
