LINGAN v. HENDERSON,

limitation, under one or other name or form, is to be found in all
codes of law. It is a rule, which, as to some cases, is prescribed
in positive terms by the legislature, while as to others it is the
result of usage or judicial decisions; but in all instances the lapse
of time specified, as applicable to the case, gives a rule by which
all courts of justice are bound. The statute of limitations does not
apply in terms to proceedings in courts of equity; it applies to
particular actions at common law, and limits the time within which
they shall be brought, according to the nature of those actions;
but it does not say there shall be no recovery in any other mode of
proceeding. If the equitable title be not sued upon within the
time within which a legal title of the same nature ought to be sued
upon, to prevent the bar created by the statute, the court acting by
analogy to the statute, will not relieve. If the party be guilty of
such laches in prosecuting his equitable title as would bar him, if
his title were solely at law, he shall be barred in equity; that is all
the operation this statute has or ought to have on proceedings in
equity.(e)

But at law, as well as in equity, there are various peculiarities,
which have been held to be sufficient to take a case out of the
operation of the rule. They are either such as have been omitted
to be noticed in the statute itself (f) or they are such as the statute
has expressly specified; or they are such as arise out of facts and
circumstances,—as where the courts of justice have been closed by
some great national calamity ;(g) or where the parties stand in the
relation to each other of trustee and cestui que trust ;(h) or where
the party, by omitting to plead or ask in his answer the benefit of
the statute of limitations, thereby tacitly admits, that the rule cannot
or need not be applied to his case ;(i) or where, by an express
declaration or acknowledgment admitting the claim, he thereby
renews the contract or cause of suit, and thus tacitly admits that
his case is not within the terms of the rule.( j) In all cases where
this court, having cognizance of the whole case, finds it uncon-
scionable to suffer the statute of limitations to be applied, it will
be disregarded; and in all other cases, of which this court does

(e) Bond v. Hopkins, 1 Scho. & Lefr. 428; Stackhouse v. Barnston, 10 Yes. 466;
Shipbrooke v. Hinchingbrook, 13 Ves. 396; Cholmondeley v. Clinton, 2 Jac. St Walk,
139; Christophers v. Sparke, 2 Jac. & Walk. 233; The Rebecca, 5 Rob. Ad. Rep.
104; Morgan v. Davis, 2 H. St McH. 17.—(/) 4 Bac. Abr. 472.—(g) Co. Litt 249.
(k) 4 Bac, Abr. 478.—(t) Prince v. Heylin, 1 Atk. 484.—(j) Oliver v. Gray, 1 H.
& G. 213.

35