Cochran v. Harrow
Illinois Supreme Court
The complainant, Harrow, filed his bill in chancery, setting forth: That on or about the 23rd of February, 1854, he purchased of Samuel M. Hart, of Cincinnati, out lot, or block, number 13, in Canal Trustees’ subdivision of section 7, township 39, R. 14 E., containing 10 acres, more or less, for $12,000, one-fourth cash, balance in three notes of $3,000 each, bearing .six per cent, interest, payable in one, two and three years, respectively, and secured by mortgage on the…
Read the full summary
The complainant, Harrow, filed his bill in chancery, setting forth: That on or about the 23rd of February, 1854, he purchased of Samuel M. Hart, of Cincinnati, out lot, or block, number 13, in Canal Trustees’ subdivision of section 7, township 39, R. 14 E., containing 10 acres, more or less, for $12,000, one-fourth cash, balance in three notes of $3,000 each, bearing .six per cent, interest, payable in one, two and three years, respectively, and secured by mortgage on the premises, at the date of purchase. That prior to-said purchase, Hart employed land agents in Chicago, to sell said…
1Opinion of the CourtBreese, J.
Do the facts in this case sufficiently show an equitable estoppel ?
An equitable estoppel is said to be where one knowingly, though he does it passively, by looking on, suffers another to purchase land, under an erroneous opinion of title, without making known his claim, he shall not afterwards be permitted to exercise his legal right against such person. It would be an act of fraud and injustice, and his conscience is bound by this equitable estoppel.
The proof in this case is full to the point that the appellant, when' spoken to by the agent of the appellee, about the title to the property in…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Moran v. PalmerMichigan Supreme Court · 1865
- Mills v. GravesIllinois Supreme Court · 1865
- Cleland v. CasgrainMichigan Supreme Court · 1892
- Foster v. YoungSupreme Court of Iowa · 1872