
    Bulkley v. Bulkley.
    In the Court belowy
    JOSATHAH : RtttKLEYj and ElIFHAI.KT RBtKtEY, Juh, Petitioners; John Bulkley, and Joshua Bulkley,Res-pondents,
    
    Though length of time mav be an etjuitable bar, m analogy to the statute of limitations,to a bill to redeem ; the respi «dent cannot take advantage of it on demurrer, but must insist on it by his answer, in order to give the petition® an opportunity to shew, on the hearing, that he is within the savings of the statute.
    1' HIS was a petition in chancery to redeem mortgaged premises.
    It appeared from the petition, that the mortgage was made June 14th* 1771 ; and that the mortgagees went immediately into possession, taking the whole rents and profits. The petition was dated September 12th, 1804.
    The respondents demurred to the petition, and the Superior Court adjudged the same insufficient.
    
      Jngersoll and R. Griswold, for the plaintiffs in error,
    contended, that the respondents could not avail themselves of length of time, in analogy to the statute of limitations, to Par the petitioners equity, on demurrer : but must insist on it by answer in their order to give the petitioners an opportunity to shew, on the hearing, that they were within the savings of the statute. The case of Aggas v. Pickerill,  was cited, and principally relied on,
    
      Spalding, for the defendants in error,
    contended, that when a party makes application to a court of chancery for relief, he must shew, that he comes within the rules of chancery, or his petition may be properly dismissed on demurrer.
    
      
      
         3 Atk. 225.
    
   By the Covet,

The judgment was reversed,  