Newman et al. v. Edwards

• Decision Date: 01 January 1859
• Parties: Newman et al. versus Edwards.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

34 Pa. 32

Newman et al. versus Edwards.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

ERROR to the Common Pleas of Fulton county.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

King & Jordan, for the plaintiffs in error.—The owners of the Harrison survey are estopped by the acts and declarations of O'Connor, from contesting the boundary line pointed out by him. It was after these acts and declarations of O'Connor that Barnet and his successors in the possession made improvements upon the land, took out a warrant, and had a survey made and returned, adopting the division line established by him; and the law will presume the expenditures were incurred on the faith of such acts and declarations. It is not necessary there should be positive proof that the expenditures were incurred on the credit of the acts and declarations; it is enough that there is a possibility of it, to raise an equitable estoppel by operation of law: Lewis v. Carstairs, 5 W. & S. 209; Crowell v. Meconkey, 5 Barr 176; McKelvey v. Truby, 4 W. & S. 323; Robinson v. Justice, 2 Penn. R. 23.

Cessna, for the defendant in error.—No question of estoppel was raised in the court below.

The opinion of the court was delivered by THOMPSON, J.

All we can deal with in this case are the alleged errors in the charge of the court. We are not warranted in transcending this limit, to discuss the question of original location, or whether those claiming under the title of O'Connor are estopped by his acts in pais or not. The points put to the court do not raise that question. It is raised here, but we cannot test the accuracy of the court below by what did not occur there, or by any alleged omission, unless it occurred after attention was called to it by the party injured. It is not error in a judge to omit to charge on a point, although material, if he is not requested to do so. We can only presume, that the point was not thought to be material, or it would have been made.

It is certainly true, that a party may be estopped by acts or declarations made even in mistake of his rights, if by them others have been led to the expenditure of money, or to make improvements on their faith: 5 Barr 176; 4 W. & S. 323; 2 Penn. R. 23; 5 W. & S. 209. But all the points called for instructions upon the conclusiveness of the acts and declarations of O'Connor, by way of estoppel, without regard to anything but their own inherent force, and without alleging injury to supervening rights acquired on the faith of them. The...