Dorris v. Smith
Oregon Supreme Court
Appeal from Multuomab County. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. It is claimed on bebalf of the respondents that the fact of the identity of the names of the appellant and his son Felix G., was a circumstance which was likely to deceive subsequent purchasers, and that the act of the appellant in executing a deed which might so deceive, was such an act, or such negligence on his part as ought now to estop him from asserting the truth.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Multuomab County. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. It is claimed on bebalf of the respondents that the fact of the identity of the names of the appellant and his son Felix G., was a circumstance which was likely to deceive subsequent purchasers, and that the act of the appellant in executing a deed which might so deceive, was such an act, or such negligence on his part as ought now to estop him from asserting the truth. In speaking of estoppels in pais the supreme court of California say, “where invoked in respect to title it must appear: 1. That the party making…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Prim, J.:
Felix G. Dorris, the appellant, who claims to be the equitable owner of lot 7 in block 25, of the city of Portland, brought this suit in the court below to compel respondents to convey to him the legal title of the undivided one half of said lot. The following facts are developed by the pleadings and evidence produced at the trial: On October 8, 1850, Daniel H. Lownsdale, being a settler upon the tract of land embracing the lot in controversy, sold and conveyed said lot by deed, for a valuable consideration, to one Hiram Wilbur, which was duly acknowledged by said…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Farmers & Merchants Insurance v. JensenNebraska Supreme Court · 1899
- Lessee of Parker v. MillerOhio Supreme Court · 1839