Stevens v. Ludlum
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action brought in the municipal court of Minneapolis, the complaint alleging that defendant was engaged in business under the name of the “New York Pie Company,” and that on December 20, 1889, plaintiff drew a bill of exchange for $100 upon defendant under that name, which was on the same day accepted by him, the acceptance being signed, “New York Pie Company, E. J. White, Mgr.” The answer was a general denial.
Read the full summary
Action brought in the municipal court of Minneapolis, the complaint alleging that defendant was engaged in business under the name of the “New York Pie Company,” and that on December 20, 1889, plaintiff drew a bill of exchange for $100 upon defendant under that name, which was on the same day accepted by him, the acceptance being signed, “New York Pie Company, E. J. White, Mgr.” The answer was a general denial. At the trial, (before the court, without a jury,) there was evidence tending to prove, and the court found, among other things, that the bill was drawn for the price of goods sold and…
1Opinion of the CourtGilfillan, C. J.
The facts found by the court below are sufficient to create an equitable estoppel against defendant as to the ownership of the concern doing business as the “New York Pie Company.” To raise such an estoppel, it is not necessary that the representations should have been made with actual fraudulent intent. If he knows or ought to know the truth, and they are intentionally made under such circumstances as show that the party making them intended, or might reasonably have anticipated, that the party to whom they are made, or to whom they are to be communicated, will rely and act on them as true,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Pence v. ArbuckleSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1876
- Coleman v. PearceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1879
- Beebe v. WilkinsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1883
3Cited by20 opinions
- United States v. WoodCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1938
- Davis v. Louisville Trust Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1910
- P. Cox Shoe Co. v. AdamsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1898
- Holland v. BlanchardCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1924
- Weidemann v. Springfield Breweries Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1906
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.