Roeckeler Lumber Co. v. Wahlbrink
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Eugene McQuillin, Judge. The courts all concur in this, that no man can set up another’s act or conduct as the ground of estoppel, unless he has himself been misled or deceived -by such act or conduct; nor can he set it up when he knew or had the same means of knowledge as to the truth of the statement as the other party.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Eugene McQuillin, Judge. The courts all concur in this, that no man can set up another’s act or conduct as the ground of estoppel, unless he has himself been misled or deceived -by such act or conduct; nor can he set it up when he knew or had the same means of knowledge as to the truth of the statement as the other party. The primary ground of the doctrine is that it would be a fraud on the party to assert what his previous conduct had denied, when on the faith of that denial others have acted. If the truth be known to both parties or they have…
1Dissent
DISSENTING’ OPINION.
NORTONI, J,
I concur in the first proposition treated with in the opinion, to the effect that Mrs. Eicks is estopped by joining her husband in executing the mortgage on her lot to raise money with which to erect the house thereon. But I dissent from the second proposition, touching the matter of estoppel by silence. In my judgment, this was a question for the jury.
Eicks, or his wife, rather, owned the lot, and Wahlbrink, the contractor who erected the building thereon, purchased the materials from the plaintiff lumber company. The privity existing between these parties—…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Chilton v. LindsayMissouri Court of Appeals · 1889