Reutzel v. McKinney

• Decision Date: 09 May 1891
• Citation: 16 S.W. 265,54 Ark. 465
• Parties: REUTZEL v. MCKINNEY
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

16 S.W. 265

54 Ark. 465

REUTZEL v. MCKINNEY

Supreme Court of Arkansas

May 9, 1891

APPEAL from Sebastian Circuit Court, Fort Smith District, JOHN S LITTLE, Judge.

Wall and McKinney were tenants in common of a tract of land. Wall executed to Gill a deed purporting to convey the entire tract of land, and delivered possession. Gill conveyed the land to Reutzel. McKinney brought ejectment for an undivided half interest in the land.

Upon the trial of the cause the defendant relied upon the defense of estoppel, growing out of the declarations and conduct of plaintiff. Upon that question the evidence stands as follows William H. Gill, defendant's vendor, after detailing the circumstances of the purchase of the property by him from Wall and the payment of the money by him, says: "Prior to the time I purchased the property from Wall, I had a conversation with the plaintiff, McKinney, in regard to the matter. It was only a few days before the purchase. It was at the plaintiff's house. I told him that I wanted to rent the property. He said that he had nothing to do with it--it was Wall's; and that he had sold it to Wall. I then went to Van Buren to see Wall, and made him an offer for the property, and he told me that he would meet me at Fort Smith on a certain day. I met him there and closed the trade. The consideration for the property was $ 275, of which $ 175 was cash, the balance due in one year. In the conversation I had with Mr. McKinney before I bought the property, he told me that I could purchase the property from Wall, as Wall wanted to sell it." Again witness stated: "I made no further investigation of Wall's title to the property because Mr. McKinney had told me that Wall was the owner of the property, and I relied upon his statement in making the deal with Wall. If I had supposed that McKinney had had any interest in the property, I would not have taken a deed from Wall alone." Defendant Reutzel also testified that plaintiff had stated to him, before and after the sale of the property by Wall to Gill, that the property belonged to Wall that, at the time he purchased the property, Gill was in possession of it.

Plaintiff testified in his own behalf that he remembered the conversation between Gill and himself in regard to renting of the property; that Gill spoke to him about renting it; that he did not know Gill wanted to buy it. When Gill spoke to him about renting the property, witness told him to go to Wall but did not tell him that Wall wanted to sell. That he did not at the time know whether Wall wanted to sell or not.

A decree was rendered for the plaintiff, in which the court held as follows: "That the declarations of said Charles D. McKinney to said W. H. Gill and Henry Reutzel, as established by the evidence, do not stop said plaintiff from setting up his title to said lands, nor does his conduct prior or subsequent to such declarations amount to an estoppel."

Affirmed.

Clendenning & Read for appellant.

The facts in this case constitute an equitable estoppel. Herman on Est. and Res. Adj., vol. 2, p. 909; ib., p. 863; 10 S.W. 365; 3 Litt. (Ky.), 340, 351; 23 Ark. 468; Bigelow on Estoppel, p. 627; 103 Mass. 501; 2 Ex., 558.

B. A. Youmans and L. P. Sandels for appellee.

The facts in this case do not amount to an estoppel. 106 U.S. 437; 93 id., 336; 109 Mass. 53; 18 Wall., 271; 14 Cal. 368; 26 id., 23; 10 Pa.St. 531; 28 Me. 239; 6 Hill, 616; 1 Curtis, C. C., 136; 3 Watts, 240; 4 Harr., 361; 33 Ark. 468.

OPINION

HEMINGWAY, J.

A "representation in order to work an estoppel must be of a nature to lead naturally, i. e., to lead a man of prudence, to the action taken." Bigelow on Est., p. 572. The question in this case is, Where the party setting up the estoppel applied to the party against whom...