A court of equity being a novelty in Porto Rico, it would be
unjust to apply its doctrines to the conduct of parties during the
period that was not governed by any rules peculiar to chancery
courts.
The right to foreclose liens on crops under a mortgage executed
in 1865, which is contested on the ground of laches, should be
determined according to Spanish law as it prevailed during the time
when laches is claimed to have taken place, and not according to
the doctrines of our equity courts.
5 P.R.F. 10 reversed. ,
The facts, which involve the construction of the law of liens on
crops in Porto Rico, are stated in the opinion.
MR. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a bill to foreclose a mortgage or lien executed in
Page 223 U. S. 66
December, 1865, by which one Ramon Ruiz Gandia bound himself to
pay a certain sum to William Noble with the proceeds of the first
crops that might be ground from the next January at a certain
plantation. The defendants pleaded laches apparent on the face of
the bill and different statutes of limitation. The notarial
document by which the lien was created is presented only in a
translation which suggests doubts whether a further lien upon
succeeding crops applied to this debt or only to another that is
referred to and that was due to another man. There was also a
petition for leave to intervene on the part of the representative
of the other creditor, referring to documents not set out, but this
was not acted upon except as affected by the disposition of the
principal case. The court below expressed doubts whether any of the
instruments bound the land, but held that, in any event, the
plaintiffs were barred by laches, and dismissed the bill.
As was observed by the court below, a court of equity is a
novelty in Porto Rico. But, this being so, it would be unjust to
apply its doctrines to the conduct of the parties during the many
years that were not governed by any rule peculiar to chancery
courts. The plaintiffs are not relying upon a merely equitable
right; they are asserting a lien which they say the Spanish law
gave them until it was barred by the statute of limitations.
Whether the Spanish law had any doctrines of laches that in any
aspect would be applicable to this case was not argued, and we have
not inquired. But it is to be observed that no change of position
on the faith of, or seemingly influenced by, the quiescence of the
plaintiff's and their predecessors is disclosed. It would be open
to argument whether laches was made out, even under our law,
sufficient to defeat the remedy usually given by equity to enforce
a purely legal right -- in other words, whether mere lapse of time
short of the statute of limitations, with nothing more, should
defeat the foreclosure of a lien supposed still to
Page 223 U. S. 67
exist at law. But we express no opinion on that point, because
the matter must be decided by Spanish law, which prevailed during
the time when the laches is supposed to have been shown.
The case is a hard one, no doubt, if the plaintiffs ultimately
should prevail on the strength of the old law of prescription for
mortgages and subsequent recognitions. It should be scrutinized
with care not only with reference to the property covered by the
lien, but the nature of the recognitions during the time when the
bond could not be denied, and the law. As we have intimated, the
record leaves some doubt as to material facts, no argument was
presented to us on behalf of the appellees, and upon the whole we
think it will be more conducive to justice if the case be remitted
to the district court for further consideration. To that end, the
decree will be reversed.
Decree reversed without prejudice.