Monks v. Belden

• Decision Date: 31 October 1883
• Citation: 80 Mo. 639
• Parties: MONKS et al., Appellants, v. BELDEN et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

80 Mo. 639

MONKS et al., Appellants,

v.BELDEN et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1883.

Appeal from Howell Circuit Court.--HON. J. R. WOODSIDE, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Hamilton & Fisher for appellants.

It has been held by this court that to establish an estoppel in pais, there must be, 1st, An admission inconsistent with the evidence proposed to be given, or the claim offered to be set up; 2nd, Action by the other party upon such admission; 3rd, An injury to him by allowing his admission to be disproved. Taylor v. Zepp, 14 Mo. 482; Spurlock v. Sproule, 72 Mo. 503; Acton v. Dooley, 74 Mo. 63. Monks was led to believe that the defendants had no claim except the attachment, and acting on that presumption, took a bill of sale and defended Arnold. Where a man by his conduct knowingly causes others to believe in the existence of a certain state of things, and such others are thereby induced to act on such belief to their injury, he will be concluded from averring, as against the latter, a different state of things. Chouteau v. Gooding, 39 Mo. 229; Gerhart v. Finney, 40 Mo. 449; Price v. Sims, 34 Mo. 446; Fletcher v. Holman, 25 Ind. 458; Big. on Estop., 496; Anomet v. Young, 14 La. An. 175; Smith v. Taylor, 14 La. An. 663.

Livingston & Green for respondents.

NORTON, J.

This suit was brought to recover damages for the alleged wrongful taking of a certain horse by defendants, and alleged to be the property of plaintiffs. The answer was a general denial, and on the trial defendants obtained judgment, from which the plaintiffs have appealed.

It appears from the record that the horse in question was originally owned by Arnold, one of the plaintiffs; that said Arnold, who was arrested on a charge of burglary and larceny, employed Monks, his co-plaintiff, to defend him against this charge, and in part payment of Monks' fees, gave him a bill of sale of the horse then in the possession of defendants. It further appears that Monks afterward demanded the horse of defendants, who refused to give him up, alleging that they held him by virtue of his having been levied upon in an attachment by them instituted against Arnold. It appears further, that the horse was sold under this proceeding, and the defendants purchased him at the sale made by the constable; it was admitted on the trial that these attachment proceedings were void, because Arnold had received no notice of them. Defendants then introduced evidence tending to show that previous to the institution of the attachment proceedings, Arnold sold them the horse in payment for damages done by Arnold to the goods of defendant. This evidence was objected to, on the ground that defendants having claimed the horse under the attachment proceedings, were estopped from setting up this previous purchase of the horse. This objection was overruled, and the court also refused to give the following instructions asked for by plaintiffs:

1. The court declares the law to be, that if the defendants relied upon a contract alleged to have been made between Arnold and defendants after his arrest, and while in the custody of an officer under the direction of defendants, and afterward sued out a writ of attachment before a justice of the peace, and directed the constable to seize the horse sued for by plaintiffs, and claimed by the defendants on the contract as the property of Arnold, and that said constable seized said horse under the direction of defendants, as the property of Arnold,...