Knowledge of one's rights or a reasonable opportunity of acquiring it, is an essential element of unexcusable delay.1 The fact, therefore, that one is ignorant of his rights, his ignorance not being due to his own negligence,2 as where his ignorance of his rights is due to the fraud of the adversary party,3 or where his right of action grows out of the fraud of the adversary party arid his delay is due to the fact that he has not discovered such fraud,4 prevents delay from amounting to laches.

1 Miles v. Wheeler, 43 111. 123; Whaley v. Eliot, 1 A. K. Mar. (Ky.) 343; 10 Am. Dec. 737; Kroenung v. Goehri, 112 Mo. 641; 20 S. W. 661; Gaugh v. Henderson, 2 Head. (Tenn.) 628.

2 Gibson v. Herriott, 55 Ark. 85; 29 Am. St. Rep. 17; 17 S. W. 589; Williams v. Presbyterian Society, 1 O. S. 478.

3 Black v. Whitall, 9 N. J. Eq. 572; 59 Am. Dec. 423; Baker v. Morris, 10 Leigh (Va.) 284.

4 Phillips v. Coal Co., 53 W. Va. 543; 44 S. E. 774.

5 Van Buskirk v. Van Buskirk, 148 111. 9; 35 N. E. 383; Kidder v. Houston (N. J. Eq.), 47 Atl. 336; Craig v. Leiper. 2 Yerg. (Tenn.) 193; 24 Am. Dec. 479.

6 Kidder v. Houston (N. J. Eq.), 47 Atl. 336.

7 Pope v. Falk, 66 Kan. 793; 72 Pac. 246; Dunbar v. Green, 66 Kan. 557; 72 Pac. 243. Contra, Felix v. Patrick, 145 U. S. 317.

1 Halstead v. Grinnan, 152 U. S. 412; Tarke v. Bingham, 123 Cal. 163; 55 Pac. 759; Dice v. Brown, 98 la. 297; 67 N. W. 253; Wall v. Meilke, 89 Minn. 232; 94 N. W. 688; Ellis v. Land Co., 102 Wis. 400; 78 N. W. 747.

2 Lurton v. Rodgers, 139 111. 554; 32 Am. St. Rep. 214; 29 X. E. 866; Whaley v. Eliot, 1 A. K. Mrr. (Ky.) 343; 10 Am. Dec. 737; Moorman v. Arthur. 90 Va. 455; 18 S. E. 869.

3 Reavis v. Reavis, 103 Fed. 813.