Kraft v. Carson County
South Dakota Supreme Court
1DissentSickel, J.
The majority opinion states that: “The essential element of the doctrine of estoppel in this type of case is fraud.” Actual fraud is deception, intentionally practiced to induce another to part with property or otherwise change his position for the worse. The deception must consist of some affirmative act. 37 C. J. S., Fraud, § 2b.
In Pomeroy’s Eq. Jur., 5th Ed., § 802, it is said that equitable estoppel in the modern sense may arise from “silence or negative omission to do anything.” The leading case of Dimond v. Manheim, 61 Minn. 178, 63 N. W. 495, 497, states: “First. To create an estoppel,…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Seymour v. OelrichsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
- Brant v. Virginia Coal & Iron Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Boggs v. Merced Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1859
- Dimond v. ManheimSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1895
- Betts v. LetcherSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1890
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.