patents for other closely-related inventions. We said in that case that delay and inaction of this kind totally unexplained, during which a rival entered the field of invention, conceived and perfected the invention, and made his application to the Patent Office for a device for which there seems to have been a demand by the public, would justify the Patent Office and the courts in presuming that what was claimed to be reduction to practice amounted to no more than a mere abandoned experiment until the contrary is clearly shown. We are not persuaded that the proof in this case on behalf of Adams, on whom is the burden of proof, is clear and satisfactory. It is not such as carries conviction with it. It is discredited by its own inherent weakness. The mistake in regard to the dies, while perhaps in itself excusable and capable of satisfactory explanation, is sufficient to show that implicit reliance is not to be placed on other portions of the testimony. We are of opinion that the decision of the Commissioner of Patents was right and just, and that it should be affirmed. Judgment of priority of invention is awarded to the appellee, William B. Murphy. The clerk of the court will certify this opinion and the proceedings of the court in the cause to the Commissioner of Patents. MCGEE v. WELCH. EQUITY; LACHES; FRAUD. 1. The defense of laches will not be sustained upon a demurrer when the bill clearly charges fraud, and it appears that the complainants have instituted their proceeding within a reasonable time after their discovery of the fraud. 2. An amended bill of complaint filed June 23, 1900, to vacate a deed of certain real estate dated July 15, 1843, charged the fraudulent procurement of the deed by the person under whom the defendants claimed, from an imbecile, who was under his control; a fraudulent Statement of the Case. [18 App. combination between a niece of such person, one of the defendants, and another person to divide the property of the imbecile, after the latter's death, May 23, 1891, in fraud of her heirs-at-law, the complainants; and fraudulent abstraction and concealment by the defendants of papers from the files of the court in an equity cause involving the same real estate. Complainants stated that they only suspected the fraud within three years of the commencement of their suit, and had no actual proof of it until within one year. Held, reversing a decree dismissing the amended bill on demurrer upon the ground of laches, that it should not have been disposed of on demurrer, but that leave should be reserved to the defendants to make the defense of laches in their answer and at the hearing. No. 1022. Submitted February 13, 1901. Decided May 21, 1901. HEARING on an appeal by the complainants from a decree of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, sustaining a demurrer to and dismissing a bill in equity to vacate a deed of certain real estate, upon the ground of laches. Reversed. The COURT in its opinion stated the case as follows: This is an appeal from a decree of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, whereby, upon a bill in equity filed to vacate a deed purporting to convey title to certain real estate in the City of Washington and upon a demurrer filed thereto, the court dismissed the bill of complaint on the ground of laches. The facts, as they appear from the bill, which, of course, must for the present at least be assumed to be true, are these. The property in controversy belonged to one Nicholas Whelan, who died about the year 1830. From him it descended to his daughter, Catharine Ann Whelan, who died in Montgomery County, in the State of Maryland, in the year 1891. She was from birth feeble-minded and deficient in normal mental capacity; and she remained through life a simpleton, incapable of executing a valid deed or contract. She finally became notoriously insane, was so adjudged by a jury of inquisition, and in such condition died. She lived and died upon a farm in Montgomery County, Maryland, D. C.] Statement of the Case. which also, like the property here in controversy, she had inherited from her father. Soon after the death of Nicholas Whelan and several years prior to the year 1840, by some means alleged by the complainants to be unknown to them, one Thomas Connelly, also at the time a resident of the said Montgomery County, took up his residence on the farm of Catharine Ann Whelan, assumed the management and control thereof and of all her affairs, and kept her in confinement in her house until his death, which occurred about August 4, 1862. What his relationship, if any, was to the poor imbecile, or who her next of kin were at the time, we are not informed by the bill of complaint. On or about July 15, 1843, while Connelly thus had the imbecile within his power and control, he fraudulently procured from her a deed of conveyance of the property in the City of Washington already mentioned, which deed was duly recorded among the land records of the District of Columbia, and he entered into the possession and control of the property. When he died in 1862 the record title and ownership became vested by descent in his niece and sole heir-at-law, the appellee, Mary J. Welch, who yet remains such record owner and possessor, subject only to a deed of trust or mortgage thereon for the payment of the sum of $2,300 and interest, payable three years after date, executed by her and her husband, her co-appellee Edward P. Welch, on or about April 28, 1897, which mortgage debt had not become due when the original bill of complaint in this case was filed on January 9, 1900. Connelly was unmarried at the time at which he took the possession of Catharine Ann Whelan's property and affairs, and at the time at which he procured from her the deed which has been mentioned. He married in 1845; and his wife, who survived him, continued the same possession, control and dominion after his death, and until the year 1866. In this last mentioned year one Susan A. Beall, of said Montgomery County, now deceased, and others not named in the bill of complaint, whether related to Catharine Ann Statement of the Case. [18 App. Whelan or not does not appear, filed their petition in court in that county for an inquisition of lunacy in the case of said Catharine Ann Whelan, whereupon said Catharine Ann Whelan was adjudged a lunatic and Susan A. Beall was appointed committee of her person and trustee of her estate. On November 27, 1867, said Susan A. Beall, as such trustee, and Benjamin Beall, her husband, now also deceased, filed their bill in equity in the Supreme Court of this District against Mary J. Welch and Edward P. Welch, already mentioned, and one Henry Nailor, who held certain mortgages on the property in controversy created by Thomas Connelly, but subsequently, it would seem, satisfied, to vacate the deed of July 15, 1843, fraudulently procured by Thomas Connelly from Catharine Ann Whelan. This suit lingered in court for upwards of twenty-seven years. Testimony was taken in it. But, with the exception of some few unimportant papers, both the pleadings and testimony have disappeared from the files of the court and are not to be found, and they are charged to be in the possession or under the control of the said Mary J. Welch and Edward P. Welch, or at all events to be somewhere within their knowledge. The cause never reached a final hearing, and it was dismissed on July 26, 1894, as having been abated by the death of Catharine Ann Whelan, which had occurred on May 23, 1891. Soon after the death of Catharine Ann Whelan and before the dismissal of the suit in equity just mentioned, the heirs of Thomas Connelly propounded for probate in Montgomery County, Maryland, a paper writing purporting to be the last will and testament of Catharine Ann Whelan, and bearing date on September 28, 1844, which was about fourteen months subsequent to the date of the deed now sought to be vacated, and about ten months prior to the marriage of Connelly. By this alleged last will and testament Catharine Ann Whelan purported to devise and bequeath all her estate, both real and personal, to Connelly. Susan A. Beall, already mentioned, falsely representing herself, as the bill of complaint alleges, to be one of the heirs-at-law of Catharine Ann D. C.] Statement of the Case. Whelan, filed a caveat to the probate of the will, naming Mary J. Welch, Edward P. Welch and Sarah A. Connelly, the widow of Thomas Connelly, as caveatees. Issues were framed, which were sent at the instance of the caveatees to the court of Washington County, Maryland, to be tried. After much testimony had been taken, a compromise was reached between the parties on June 20, 1894, in pursuance of which the caveat was withdrawn, the alleged will was admitted to probate on July 3, 1894, and the property claimed under such will was equally divided between Susan A. Beall and Mary J. Welch. In pursuance also of the same agreement Susan A. Beall, in consideration of the sum of $2,500, was to execute to Mary J. Welch a quitclaim deed of the property in controversy in the equity suit which has been mentioned. The complainants allege that they had no knowledge of this compromise at the time at which it was made, or until within a period of three years before the institution of this suit, and that Susan A. Beall was induced to make the compromise in consideration of a large pecuniary benefit to herself, and in fraud of the rights of the complainants, who were ignorant of all her proceedings. The complainants, twenty-six in number, of whom eighteen reside in the District of Columbia, one in Virginia, one in Illinois, and six in Montgomery County, Maryland, allege themselves to be the next of kin and sole heirs-at-law of Catharine Ann Whelan, but that they had little acquaintance or association with her, supposed that Connelly had been duly appointed her guardian by some court of competent jurisdiction, had no reason to suspect him and had no suspicion of his fraud until within three years before the institution of the suit, and had not in their possession any evidence of the fraud until within twelve months before the suit was commenced. These are the allegations of an amended bill of complaint which was filed on June 23, 1900, and the prayer of which is for the vacation of the deed of July 15, 1843, and for an account of rents and profits. The original bill had been filed on January 9, 1900; and it differs from the amended bill in |