Delay on the part of the plaintiff which has been intentionally caused by the defendant,1 as where the defendant induces delay by recognizing plaintiff's rights,2 or by inducing plaintiff to believe that defendant will voluntarily perform the contract which is afterwards the subject of litigation,3 or where defendant requests plaintiff to delay,4 such delay is not laches. So a delay caused by the confidence of the plaintiff in the defendant,5 or the relationship of the parties,6 may be excused and thus prevented from amounting to laches. Laches of the agent is laches of the principal if the latter is under no disability. Accordingly laches of an attorney in whose hands the claim in litigation was placed does not excuse the plaintiff.7

4 Rosenthal v. Walker, 111 U. S. 185; Horner v. Perry, 112 Fed. 906; Wilson v. Nichols, 72 Conn. 173; 43 Atl. 1052; Wilson v. Augur, 176 111. 561; 52 N. E. 289; Butler v. Prentiss, 158 N. Y. 49; 52 X. E. 652; Reeves v. Dougherty, 7 Yerg. (Tenn.) 222; 27 Am. Dec. 496; Virginia Land Co. v. Haupt, 90 Va. 533; 44 Am. St. Rep. 939; 19 S. E. 168.

5 Townsend v. Vanderwerker, 160 U. S. 171; Lancaster v. Roberts, 144 111. 213; 33 N. E. 27; Chance v. Jennings. 159 Mo. 544; 61 S. \V. 177; Richards v. Hatfield. 40 Neb. 879; 59 N. W. 777; Johnston v. Trask. 116 N. Y. 136; 15 Am. St. Rep. 394; 5 L. R. A. 630; 22 N. E. 377; Hellams v. Prior, 64 S. C. 296, 543; 42 S. E. 106; 43 S. E. 25.

2 Hovey v. Bradbury, 112 Cal. 620; 44 Pac. 1077; Koons v. Blanton, 129 Ind. 383; 27 N. E. 334; Chance v. Jennings, 159 Mo. 544; 61 S. W. 177.

3 Chance v. Jennings, 159 Mo. 544; 61 S. W. 177.

4 Hellams v. Prior, 64 S. C. 296, 543; 42 S. E. 106; 43 S. E. 25; Craig v. Leiper, 2 Yerg. (Tenn.) 193; 24 Am. Dec. 479.

5 Townsend v. Vanderwerker, 160 U. S. 171.

6 Paschall v. Hinderer, 28 O. S. 568; Prewitt v. Bunch. 101 Tenn. 723; 50 S. W. 748; Fawcett v. Faw-cett, 85 Wis. 332; 39 Am. St. Rep. 844; 55 N. W. 405.

7 Ives v. Sargent. 119 U. S. 652; Wilson v. Smith, 117 Fed. 707.