Wampol v. Kountz
South Dakota Supreme Court
Appeal from circuit court, Bon Homme county. Hon. E. G. Smith, Judge. Action by John Wampol against John T. Kountz and wife. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. The facts are stated in the opinion. A party who insists upon the act of another as working an estoppel must show that he acted upon the same, and that it formed the inducement which led him at the time to do what he did.
Read the full summary
Appeal from circuit court, Bon Homme county. Hon. E. G. Smith, Judge. Action by John Wampol against John T. Kountz and wife. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. The facts are stated in the opinion. A party who insists upon the act of another as working an estoppel must show that he acted upon the same, and that it formed the inducement which led him at the time to do what he did. Malone on real property trials, 379. The right of defendants to assert and enforce their rights of property and of possession must remain in tact until divested in some manner known to the law. Was the…
1Opinion of the CourtFuller, P. J.
From a decree in equity quieting in plaintiff the title to a farm of 160 acres the defendants appeal; and, to sustain the action of the trial court, respondent insists that the following uncontroverted facts forever estop appellants from claiming any right, title, or interest in and to the premises: Upon a sufficient showing of prior settlement, _ improvements, and cultivation of the tract, appellant Hattie E. Kountz, then Hattie E. Grant, made final proof thereof before the United States land office on the 25th day of October, 1872, and eight months thereafter received a patent, which was…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Landsdale v. SmithSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Manufacturers' & Traders' Bank v. HazardNew York Court of Appeals · 1864
- Hanner v. MoultonSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Hagan v. EllisSupreme Court of Florida · 1897
- Merchant v. WoodsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1881
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Church of Christ v. McDonaldTennessee Supreme Court · 1943
- Macomber v. KinneySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1910
- Farr v. SemmlerSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1909
- Brusha Et Ux. v. Board of Education of Oklahoma CitySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1913
- Kenny v. McKenzieSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1910
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.