but negligence amounting to a breach of duty supplies the place of intent.1 5. The other party must have been induced to act upon the representation or concealment. His action must have been of was held that he was not estopped to show an illegal consideration. Andrews v. Lyon, 11 Allen (Mass.), 349. Representation must be voluntary.-One cannot claim an estoppel on account of representations which he entrapped another into making. Calhoun v. Richardson, 30 Conn. 210; Sinnett v. Moles, 38 Iowa, 25; Gallagher v. People, 91 Ill. 582; Gray v. Gray, 83 Mo. 106; Wilcox v. Howell, 44 N. Y. 398; Stanford v. Lyon, 37 N. J. Eq. 94. Who may claim. — Ordinarily only the party to whom the representation was made can claim to have been misled thereby for the purpose of raising an estoppel. Townsend Bank v. Todd, 47 Conn. 190; Mayenberg. Haynes, 50 N. Y. 675; Durant 2. Pratt, 55 Vt. 270; Peek v. Gurney, L. R. 6 H. L. Car. 377. Compare Horn v. Cole, 51 N. H. 287; Mitchell v. Reed, 9 Cal. 204. But if the representation was intended to be general, one who is informed of and relies on it may claim the estoppel. Kinney 7. Whiton, 44 Conn. 262; s. c., 26 Am. Rep. 462; Quirk v. Thomas, 6 Mich. 78. A tax collector who gave a receipt for taxes on receiving a check was not estopped to show that the check was not paid, because a purchaser was induced by the receipt to pay the full consideration for the premises. Kuhl v. Jersey City, 8 C. E. Green (N. J.), 84. 1 Griffith 2. Wright, 6 Colo. 248; Greene 2. Smith, 57 Vt. 268; Pence v. Arbuckle, 22 Minn. 417; Hardy v. Chesapeake Bank, 51 Mo; Manufacturers' Bank v. Hazard, 30 N. 226; Horn z. Cole, 51 N. H. 227; Kingman 2. Graham, 51 Wis. 232; Brant 2. Virginia Coal Co., 93 U. S. 326; Cornish 7. Abington, 4 Hurl. & N. 549. The holder of a certificate of purchase of State land who has remained out of possession for forty-three years, and neglected to perfect his title, is estopped to claim against a subsequent occupying purchaser in good th. Bridenbaugh . King, 42 O. St. Ne once not amounting to a breach of duty will not supply the place of intent. Greenfield Bank v. Stowell, 123 Mass. 196; Holmes v. Trumper, 22 Mich. 427; People v. Bank of North America, 75 N. Y. 548. 2. Daniels v. Equitable Ins. Co., 48 Conn. 101; Powell v. Rogers, 105 Ill. 318; Palmer v. Meiners, 17 Kan. 478; Grover v. Blondell, 70 Me. 190; Sulphine v. Dunbar, 55 Miss. 255; Burke v. Adams, 80 Mo. 504; Palden, 8o Mo. 639; Canning v 7 Cyc. of L.-2 Monks Brown, 50 Mich. 436; Butchers' Assoc. v. Boston, 139 Mass. 290; McAbe v. Thompson, 27 Minn. 134; Marqueze v. Fernhadez, 30 La. Ann. 195; Lawrence v. Towle, 59 N. H. 28; Andrews v. Etna Life Ins. Co., 85 N. Y. 334; Woodruff v. Lounsberry, 40 N. J. Eq. 545; Askins v. Coe, 12 Lea (Tenn.), 672; Grigsby v. Caruth, 57 Tex. 269; Earl v. Stevens, 57 Vt. 474; Berwind 7. Schultz, 28 Fed. Rep. 110; Cropper v. Smith, 28 Ch. D. 700. A dock-owner whose grantor petitioned for a bridge is not estopped to claim damages resulting from its proximity when the bridge company's action was not determined by the grantor's acts. Maxwell v. Bay City Bridge Co., 46 Mich. 278. Representations after Change in Position. A representation made after the change of position works no estoppel. McCall v. Powell, 64 Ala. 254; Behrens v. Germania Ins. Co., 64 Iowa, 19; Straus v. Minzesheimer, 78 Ill. 492; Crossan v. May, 68 Ind. 242; Garlinghouse v. Whitwell, 51 Barb. (N. Y.) 208. But though the contract was made before the representation, if performance was induced thereby, an estoppel arises. Goeing v. Outhouse, 95 Ill. 346. A representation by the maker of a promissory note to an assignee thereof after assignment raises no estoppel. Hoover v. Kilander, 83 Ind. 420. Representation not acted upon. An account rendered not assented to does not estop the creditor to claim a larger amount. Stryker v. Cassidy, 76 N. Y. 50. Municipal officers may show that they have charged themselves with indebtedness erroneously in their reports. State v. Hauser, 63 Ind. 155; Van Ness v. Hadsell, 54 Mich. 561. An officer is not estopped by his return, if it has not been acted upon. Rogers v. Cromack, 123 Mass. 582; Harris v. Kirkpatrick, 6 Vroom. (Ñ. J.) 392; State v. Ogle, 2 Houst. (Del.) 371; Stimson v. Farnham, L. R. 7 Q. B. 175. Compare Dunklin v. Wilson, 64 Ala. 162; State v. Penner, 27 Minn. 269. Ordinarily the action must have been prompt. Redwood Cemetery Assoc. v. Bandy, 93 Ind. 246; Baker v. Johnston, 21 Mich. 319; Hunter v. Sand Hill, 6 Hill (N. Y.) 407; Beatty v. Kurtz, 2 Pet. (U.S.) 566; Planters', etc., Co. v. Selma Bank, 63 Ala. 585. Where one obtains a judgment for tort he can claim no estoppel for the purpose 17 a character to result in substantial prejudice were he not permitted to rely on the estoppel.1 b. Application of the Doctrine. - Where the owner or person having an interest in property represents another as the owner, or permits him to appear as such, or as having complete authority over it, he will be estopped to deny such ownership or authority against persons who, relying on his representations or silence, have purchased or acquired interests in the property. of satisfying the judgment against one who has permitted the legal title to his property to be in the defendant. Lillis v. Gallagher, 39 N. J. Eq. 93. An adjustment of a loss not accepted does not estop an insurance company to allege a breach of condition. Murphy v. People's Ins. Co., 7 Allen (Mass.), 239; Colonius v. Hibernia Ins. Co., 3 Mo. App. 56. A person who has accepted and voted upon stock of a corporation may show that he holds it as collateral security only, if no one has been induced thereby to subscribe to the stock or give credit to the company. Burgess . Seligman, 107 U. S. 20. Acquiescence. Simply permitting persons to enclose portions of the public streets does not estop the public to claim its rights therein. Solberg v. Decorah, 41 Iowa, 501; Sheen v. Stothart, 29 La. Ann. 630. Participating in an election, and paying taxes authorized thereby, will not prevent the people from contesting the validity of the tax. Cameron v. Stephenson, 69 Mo. 373. And generally acquiescence alone will not supply the place of evidence that the representation was acted upon. See Hamlin . Sears, 82 N. Y. 327; Williamson v. N. J., etc., Rd., 29 N. J. Eq. 311; Lorentz 2. Lorentz, 14 W. Va. 809. 1. Yates . Hurd, 8 Colo. 343; Townsend Bank v. Todd, 47 Conn. 190; Leland 7. Isenbeck, 1 Idaho, 469; Jamison 2. Miller, 64 Iowa, 402; Anderson 2. Hubble, 93 Ind. 570; S. C., 47 Am. Rep. 394; Michigan State Ins. Co. v. Soule, 51 Mich. 312; DeMill v. Moffat, 49 Mich. 125; Malloney v. Horan, 49 N. Y. III; s. c., 10 Am. Rep. 335; Voorhis . Olmstead, 66 N. Y. 113; East. Dolihite, 72 N. Car. 562; Zell's Appeal, 103 Pa. St. 344; Warder . Baldwin, 51 Wis. 450; Knights 7. Wiffen, L. R. 5 Q. B. 660. The damages may be a reasonable presumption. Cases supra. One who has a right to compensation for the care and support of his parents is not estopped to claim it by having declared after their death that he would make no such claim. Botts v. Fultz, 70 Ind. 396. One who indicates that certain property belongs to an execution defendant is not And estopped to claim it as his own if the execution creditor was not injured by his representation. Warder v. Baldwin, 51 Wis. 450. A husband is not estopped to demand curtesy by reason of having consented to his wife's devising land. Roach z. White, 94 Ind. 510. A widow is not estopped to plead the statute of limitations by having made partial payments on a debt of her husband, not having taken out letters testamentary or of administration on his estate. Lewis z. Ford, 67 Ala. 143. If the person claiming the estoppel was legally bound to do what he did, there is no estoppel in his favor. Organ . Stewart, 60 N. Y. 413; Turner v. Waldo, 40 Vt. 51. Fraud. A vendor cannot say that a sale was without consideration and for the purpose of defrauding his creditors Bassett 2. Shepardson, 52 Mich. 3; Bynum v. Miller, 86 N. Car. 559; s. c., 41 Am. Rep. 467; Peterson v. Brown, 17 Nev. 172; s. c., 45 Am. Rep. 437. 2. Wrongful Sale.- Powers 2. Harris, 98 Ala. 410; Jowers v. Phelps, 33 Ark. 465; Winton 7. Hart, 39 Conn. 16; Pool &. Lewis, 41 Ga. 162; s. c., 5 Am. Rep. 526; Roberts v. Davis, 72 Ga. 819; Osborn 7. Elder, 65 Ga. 360; Miles . Lefi, 60 la. 168; Stewart v. Munford, 91 Ill. 58; Bobbitt v. Shryer, 70 Ind. 513; Alexander v. Ellison, 79 Ky. 148; Sebright v. Moore, 33 Mich 92; Chapman . Pingree, 67 Me. 198; Rice z. Bunce, 49 Mo. 231; s. c., 8 Am. Rep. 129; Hawkins 7. Methodist Church, 23 Minn. 256; Montague v. Weil, 30 La. Ann. 50; Horn v. Cole, 51 N. H. 287; s. c., 12 Am. Rep. III; Howland v. Woodruff, 60 N. Y. 73; Redman v. Graham, 80 N. Car. 231; Burton's Appeal, 93 Pa. St. 214; Dunlap v. Gooding, 22 S. Car. 548; Kirk v. Hamilton, 102 U. S. 68; Pickard v. Sears, 6 Ad. & E. 469, the leading case on equitable estoppel. The rule applies where the owner of an unnegotiable chose in action confers upon another the apparent absolute ownership, and the latter sells the same to an innocent purchaser for value. Hentz v. Miller, 94 N. Y. 64 Moore v. Metropolitan Bank, 55 N. Y. 41; Combes v. Chandler, 33 O. St. 178. Where one stood by and saw another generally, where a person by word or conduct voluntarily induces another to act on a belief in the existence of a certain state of purchase a receipt as a secret of trade without disclosing the fact that it had been communicated to him, and that he claimed the right to use it, it was held that he was estopped in equity from using the recipe. Champlir v. Stoddart, 30 Hun (N. Y.), 300. If the principal knowing of proceedings to subject his property to demands against the agent, does not seek to intervene, he estops himself from afterwards claiming the property. Murne v. Schwabacher, 2 Wash. Ty. 191. By Trustees, etc.— A cestui que trust not under disability is bound by a sale of the property by the trustee, made with his knowledge and apparent consent. Regina v. Shropshire Union Co., L. R. 8 Q. B. 420; Perkins v. Conant, 29 Ill. 184. So is an heir by a sale made by the executor with his encouragement. Favill v. Roberts, 50 N. Y. 222. So is the owner of a chose in action by a sale thereof to an innocent purchaser by one to whom it has been intrusted with the indicia of ownership. Combes v. Chandler, 33 O. St. 178; Moore v. Metropolitan Bank, 55 N. Y. 41. So of mining stocks. See also Hentz 7. Miller, 94 N. Y. 64; Gass v. Hampton, 16 Nev. 185. Witnessing Conveyance. Witnessing a deed of one's own property generally raises an estoppel. Hale v. Skinner, 117 Mo. 474; Stevens v. Dennett, 51 N. H. 324. But not unless the witness knows the contents of the instrument. Coker v. Ferguson, 70 Ala. 284. Procuring one to witness a deed to land estops the grantor to deny the competency of the witness. Hill . Hill, 53 Vt. 578. Sale under execution, etc.-One who made no objection to a judgment improperly obtained against him, and a sale of real estate thereunder, is estopped to assert title against an innocent purchaser. Weaver v. Lutz, 102 Pa. St. 593. So of a sale under foreclosure proceedings. Collier v. Pfenning, 34 N. J. Eq. 22. Ratification. One who with knowledge accepts the proceeds of an unauthorized sale of his property is estopped to dispute the validity of the sale. Goodman v. Winter, 64 Ala. 410; France v. Haynes, 67 Iowa, 139; Schenck v. Sautter, 73 Mo. 46; Moore. Hill, 85 N. Car. 218; Field v. Doyon, 64 Wis. 560. See also Booth v. Wiley, 102 Ill. 84. Heirs joining in a deed of quit-claim with a trustee to confirm a former deed by the trustee of the ancestor's land are estopped to contest the validity of the former deed. Valette v. Bennett, 69 Ill. 632. A creditor of the vendor of chattels may estop himself from denying the facts of delivery and continued change of possession, by so recognizing the validity of the sale as to cause the buyer to spend money on the faith of such recognition. Ercolle v. Franks, 67 Cal. 137. After-acquired Title. A sheriff who has in his hands an execution binding on property, and induces an innocent purchaser to buy the property by representing that there are no liens upon it, cannot set up against such purchaser a title subsequently acquired at the execution sale. Gill v. Denton, 71 N. Car. 341; s. c., 17 Am. Rep. 8. A person who sells personal property as his own is estopped to say that he had no interest in the property at the time of the sale. Wortham v. Gurley, 75 Ala. 356; Keyes v. Scanlan, 63 Wis. 345. Real Estate.A person may be estopped to claim title to land by his conduct in reference thereto. Yates v. Hurd, 8 Col. 343 Pitcher v. Dove, 99 Ind. 175; Copeland v. Copeland, 28 Me. 524; Money v. Ricketts, 62 Miss. 209; Railroad 2. Ragsdale, 54 Miss. 200; Wells v. Peirce, 27 N. H. 303; De Herques v. Marti, 85 N. Y. 609; Wendell v. Van Rensselaer, 1 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 344; Fielding v. DuBose, 63 Tex. 631; Dickerson v. Colgrove, 100 U. S. 578; Greene v. Smith, 57 Vt. 268; 2 Herman on Estop. 1054 et seq. A familiar example is parol dedication of land. Lee v. Lake, 14 Mich. 12; Baker v. Johnston, 21 Mich. 319. A vendor of one of two'lots was not permitted to deny a representation to the purchaser that there was an alley between them, although the deed made no allusion to the alley. Kirkpatrick v. Brown, 59 Ga. 450. But there must be fraud, actual or constructive. Burke v. Brewer, 2 Met. (Mass.) 421; Kelly v. Wagner, 61 Miss. 299; 2 Herman on Estop. 1061. It has been frequently held that an estoppel in pais is not available at law, particularly as the basis of the common-law ejectment. Doe d. McPherson v. Walters, 16 Ala. 714; Thompson v. Campbell, 57 Ala. 183; Townsend Bank v. Todd, 47 Conn. 190; Nix v. Collins, 65 Ga. 219; Stockyards v. Wiggins Ferry Co. 102 Ill. 514; Wimmer v. Ficklin, 14 Bush. (Ky.) 193; DeMill v. Moffatt, 49 Mich. 125; Hayes . Livingston, 34 Mich. 384; s. C., 22 Am. Rep. 533; Hamlin v. Hamlin, 19 Me. 141; Delaplaine v. Hitchcock, 6 Hill (N. Y.), 14; West v. Tilghman, 9 Ired. (N. Car.) 163. But when not made the ground of a common-law ejectment, an estoppel in pais affecting the title to land is available at law by the weight of author facts, he will be estopped as against him to allege a different state of facts.1 ity. Davis v. Davis, 26 Cal. 23; Brown v. Wheeler, 17 Conn. 345; Pool . Lewis, 41 Ga. 162; Hale v. Skinner, 117 Mass. 474; Bigelow v. Foss, 59 Me. 162; Stevens v. Dennett, 51 N. H. 324; Finnegan v. Carraher, 47 N. Y. 493; McAfferty v. Conover, 7 Ohio St. 99; Beaupland v. McKean, 28 Pa. St. 124; Spears v. Walker, 1 Head (Tenn.), 166; Halloran v. Whitcomb, 43 Vt. 306; Mariner v. Milwaukee, etc., Rd., 26 Wis. 84; Kirk v. Hamilton, 102 U. S. 68. If the estoppel cannot be availed of at law, the proceedings may be enjoined in equity. Society, etc., v. Lehigh Valley Rd., 32 N. J. Eq. 329; Williams v. Jersey, Craig & P. 91. The facts of an estoppel in pais may sustain a bill for a conveyance of land. Favill. Roberts, 3 Lans. 14; S. C., 50 N. Y. 222; Goodman v. Winter, 64 Ala. 410. 1. Larkins v. Mead, 77 Ala. 485; Robin son v. Barnett, 19 Fla. 670; s. c., 45 Am. Rep. 24; Dodge v. Pope, 93 Ind. 480; Genoa 7. Van Alstine, 108 Ill. 555; Caswell v. Fuller, 77 Me. 105; State v. Young, 23 Minn. 549; Union Sav. Assoc. v. Kehlor, 7 Mo. App. 158; Newman . Mueller, 16 Neb. 523; Chalmers v. Turnipseed, 21 S. Car. 126. There is said to be no estoppel against showing that an act is void by statute. Tibble v. Anderson, 63 Ga. 41; Rosebrough v. Ansley, 35 Ohio St. 107. Compare Payne v. Burnham, 62 N. Y. 69; Mason v. Anthony, 3 Keyes (N. Y.), 609; Wilson v. Western Land Co. 77 N. Car. 445. See also McKnight v. Pittsburgh, 91 Pa. St. 273. And a party was held not estopped by an agreement based on a void statute. Turnipseed v. Hudson, 50 Miss. 429; S. C., 19 Am. Rep. 15. A defendant is not estopped by a parol promise not to plead the statute of limitations if plaintiff will allow him further time. Shapley . Abbott, 42 N. Y. 443; s. c., 1 Am. Rep. 548. One who induces another to sign paper as surety cannot afterwards deny having signed as principal. Bobbitt v. Shryer, 70 Ind. 513; Melms v. Werdehoff, 14 Wis. 18. The maker of a note, dated upon a week day, cannot allege against an innocent purchaser, that it was executed on Sunday. Knox 7. Clifford, 38 Wis. 651; s. c., 20 Am. Rep. 28. Validity of Debt, etc. One liable on a note, bond, mortgage, or the like, who tells one desiring to purchase the same, that it has no defence, or that it is "good," or that he has no defence, etc., cannot against such purchaser allege want of con sideration, non est factum, usury, and the like. Wilkinson v. Searcy, 74 Ala. 243; Plummer v. Farmers' Bank, 90 Ind. 386; Feltz v. Walker, 49 Conn. 93; McCreary v. Parsons, 31 Kan. 447; Hefner v. Dawson, 63 Ill. 403; s. c., 14 Am. Rep. 123: Weyh v. Boylan, 85 N. Y. 394; s. c., 39 Am. Rep. 669; Smyth v. Munroe, 84 N. Y. 354; Simpson v. Moore, 5 Lea (Tenn.), 372; Leugar v. Hazlewood, II Lea (Tenn.), 539; Rudd 2. Matthews, 79 Ky. 479; s. c, 42 Am. Rep. 231; Bates v. Leclair, 49 Vt. 229. So of an indorser who has acknowledged notice of dishonor. St. John v. Roberts, 31 N. Y. 441; Libbey v. Pierce, 47 N. H. 309. So of an acknowledgment of the validity of a judgment. Cook v. McCahill, 41 Ñ. J. Eq. 69. But the maker of a note, etc., is not precluded from using any defence arising subsequent to the representation. Cloud v. Whiting, 38 Ala. 57; Plummer v. Farmers' Bank, 90 Ind. 386 Nor does an estoppel arise if the holder has already taken the note. Crossan 7. May, 68 Ind. 242. Destruction of Deed. A grantee who has destroyed his deed with the purpose of revesting the title in the grantor, is estopped to claim the title, if fraud would result. Dukes 2. Spangler, 35 Ohio St. 119; Farrar v. Farrar, 4 N. H. 191; Trull 7. Skinner, 17 Pick. (Mass.) 213. But there is no estoppel if no fraud would result. Jeffers v. Philo, 35 Ohio St. 173. Public Improvements. One moving for public improvements, and aiding in the preliminary proceedings, is estopped to deny that they are without authority. In re Cooper, 93 N. Y. 507; Burlington 2. Gilbert, 31 la. 356; Ferson's Appeal, 96 Pa. St. 140. Compare Strosser z. Ft. Wayne, 100 Ind. 443; Steckett v. East Saginaw, 22 Mich. 104; Long . Columbus, 39 O. St. 281. Petitioners to a town to let certain work cannot object to a tax therefor, that the contract was irregular, if they knew of such fact at the time. Patterson 2. Baumer, 43 Iowa, 477; Motz v. Detroit, 18 Mich. 495; Kellogg . Ely, 15 O. St. 64. One who did not assent to irregularities is not estopped. Taylor v. Burnap, 39 Mich. 739; Petition of Sharp, 56 N. Y. 207; s. c., 15 Am. Rep. 415. One who induces a town to build a bridge, knowing its necessary character, cannot recover for injuries to his land caused by changing the grade of the street for the approaches. Justice v. Lancaster, 20 Mo. App. 559. A municipality has been allowed to deny the constitutionality of a law authorizing it to levy a tax under which it had acted. Loan Association v. Topeka, 20 Wall. (U S.) 655 One who has accepted money in redemption of property cannot dispute the payor's right to redeem. Goddard v. Renner, 57 Ind. 532. Further Illustrations. A bill of sale, absolute on its face, cannot be shown to be conditional as against a creditor who attached the property on the faith of the bill of sale. Dixon v. Blondin, 58 Vt. 689. And a woman who acknowledged the own ership of a dog was held estopped to deny such ownership in an action against her for damages occasioned by it, if she knew that the inquiry was made for the purpose of fixing the liability. Robb v. Shephard, 50 Mich. 189. But it is said that one who induces another to garnishee him by admit. ting an indebtedness to the defendant is not estopped to dispute the indebtedness. Warder. Baker, 54 Wis. 49. See also Starry z. Korab, 65 Iowa, 267. A garnishee who induces the plaintiff to delay service by a promise not to pay the defendant until after notice to the plaintiff, is estopped to claim that he has since paid the defendant in full. Ashworth v. Brown, 15 Phila. (Pa.) 207. A person cannot complain of injury from the flow of waters if he forbade the diversion of the same. Griffin v. Lawrence, 135 Mass. 365. An attorney who advises his client to invest in a bad title cannot afterwards buy a better title, and assert it against him. Gibbons v. Hoag, 95 Ill. 45. If an officer accepts a salary under a city ordinance, he will not be allowed to demand a larger salary under a previous ordinance. Rau. Little Rock, 34 Ark. 303. An employee who deliberately conceals a claim against his employer when business usage demands a full showing of his claims cannot afterwards assert it. Gingrass v. Iron Cliffs Co., 48 Mich. 413. A person who directs another to sign a deed in his name in his presence, and induces others to act on it, cannot dispute its validity. Goodell v. Bates, 14 R. I. 65. company giving a written certificate that a certain person is entitled to a bond cannot deny the truth of the statement against the innocent assignee of the certificate. Midland Rd. v. Hitchcock, 37 N. J. Eq. 549. A person is not estopped to show that an acceptance or promissory note is a forgery because he has paid other such acceptances or notes. Cohen v. Teller, 93 Pa. St. 123; Commercial Bank v. Bernero, 17 Mo. App. 313; Morris v. Bethell, L. R. 5 C. P. 47. Nor does the receipt of an account without objection prevent a debtor from pleading the statute of limitations. Verrier v. Gillon, 97 Pa. St. 63. Nor does buying goods at a sale under a void execution estop the purchaser from maintaining an action against the officer for the wrongful sale, where the purchaser warned the officer against selling the goods. Brayman v. Whitcomb, 134 Mass. 525. If one perform acts required by a written instrument, he cannot deny his execution thereof. Boggs v. Olcott, 40 Ill. 303. Paying part of a claim does not estop supervision to refuse payment of the remainder. People v. New York, 1 Hill (N. Y.), 362. A corporation may sue upon the bond of its officer for misappropriation of funds, although it has approved his accounts, and founded a report to the Legislature thereon. Lexington, etc., Rd. v. Elwell, 8 Allen (Mass.), 371. A debtor who gives information upon which a creditor honestly makes the oath upon which the former is arrested is estopped from holding the creditor chargeable with a false oath. Caswell v. Fuller, 77 Me. 105. One who may demand water under a contract, and gives notice that he requires a certain amount, cannot set up that he neither needed nor used the amount specified. Brown v. Evans, 18 Nev. 141. Compromises. Where two parties claimed the same land under a will, and with knowledge of all the facts collected and voluntarily divided the rents and profits, neither can subsequently recover therefor from the other. White Rowland, 67 Ga. 546; s. c., 44 Am. Rep. 731. On a compromise between a principal maker of a note and part of his creditors, including a surety on the note but not the holder, if the surety agrees to receive the compromise payment he is estopped to deny his liability to the holder. Irvine v. Adams, 48 Wis. 468; s. c., 33 Am. Rep. 817. Easements. A person who sold a house having windows overlooking his adjacent lands, was held estopped from obstructing the windows, if they were necessary to give light and air to the house, but not if light and air could be obtained by opening other windows elsewhere. Turner v. Thompson, 58 Ga. 268; s. c., 24 Am. Rep. 497. Where two parties agreed to build a wall, and after it was partly built one of them refused to continue the work, and the other completed it, the one so refusing was estopped to deny an easement for the wall. Rindge v. Baker, 57 N. Y. 209; s. c., 15 Am. Rep. 475. A grantor who points out wrong lines to his grantee, and sees him build in refer ence thereto, is estopped. Rutherford v. Tracy, 48 Mo. 325; s. c., 8 Am. Rep. 104. See note "Improvements on Land," ante. |