Hodge v. Ludlum

• Decision Date: 20 January 1891
• Citation: 47 N.W. 805,45 Minn. 290
• Parties: HODGE v LUDLUM.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

45 Minn. 290

47 N.W. 805

HODGEvLUDLUM.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Jan. 20, 1891.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. To entitle a party to claim that another is estopped by his representations, the representations must have been made to him, or they have been of such a character, and made under such circumstances, that the party making them must be taken to have contemplated that they would be communicated to and acted on by him.

2. Findings of fact held insufficient in this particular.

3. The findings must in themselves be sufficient to support the judgment. The evidence cannot be resorted to to supplement them.

Appeal from municipal court, city of Minneapolis; MAHONEY, Judge.

Gilger & Harrison, for appellant.

Frank R. Hubachek, (R. A. Daly, of counsel,) for respondent.

MITCHELL, J.

The complaint states two causes of action, the first a promissory note executed by the “New York Pie Company” to the plaintiff, and the second a bank-check drawn by the same party in favor of one Thompson, and by him indorsed and transferred to the plaintiff. There can be no doubt, we think, under the evidence, that both were the valid and binding obligations of the pie company, whoever that might be. The allegation of the complaint was that the defendant was the person carrying on business under that name, and hence that the papers sued on were his obligations. This was denied by the answer. Upon the trial the plaintiff sought to maintain his right to recover upon two grounds, to-wit: (1) That defendant was in fact the proprietor of the business carried on under the name referred to; (2) but even if he was not, yet he was estopped by his own conduct from denying the fact. The court found against the plaintiff on the first ground, the finding being that it was one White, and not defendant, who carried on business under that name. Upon the second the findings of the court were “that at various times (prior to the execution of the obligations sued on) the defendant stated to different persons that he was the owner and proprietor of the said business above described, and that said White was managing the same for him; that prior to said date [the date of these obligations] said statements came to the knowledge of plaintiff and Thompson, and that they believed them to be true; that, believing that defendant was the owner of the business, and relying on his credit, plaintiff loaned to White $285 for the benefit of such business, in consideration of which White, in behalf of the pie company, executed to plaintiff the note in suit; that said Thompson, believing that defendant was the owner of the business, and relying on his credit, loaned $75 to White, who, for the purpose of repaying said loan, executed and delivered to Thompson the check sued on.” It is a familiar rule that the findings of fact must in themselves he sufficient to support a judgment. The evidence cannot be resorted to to supplement insufficient findings. The...