Stevens v. Ludlum
| Decision Date | 11 May 1891 |
| Parties | John W. Stevens v. John Ludlum |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action brought in the municipal court of Minneapolis, the complaint alleging that defendant was engaged in business under the name of the "New York Pie Company," and that on December 20, 1889, plaintiff drew a bill of exchange for $ 100 upon defendant under that name, which was on the same day accepted by him, the acceptance being signed, "New York Pie Company, E. J. White, Mgr." The answer was a general denial. At the trial, (before the court, without a jury,) there was evidence tending to prove, and the court found among other things, that the bill was drawn for the price of goods sold and delivered by plaintiff; that the goods were ordered by White in the name of the pie company and, before delivering them, the plaintiff made inquiry at Bradstreet's and at Dun's commercial agencies, (to which he was a subscriber,) and was informed that the defendant was the proprietor of the business carried on in that name, and he relied on this information in making the sale; and that the information so given by the agencies had been received by them from defendant. Judgment was ordered for plaintiff, and the defendant appeals from an order refusing a new trial.
Order affirmed.
Gilger & Harrison, for appellant.
Hubachek & Daly, for respondent.
The facts found by the court below are sufficient to create an equitable estoppel against defendant as to the ownership of the concern doing business as the "New York Pie Company." To raise such an estoppel, it is not necessary that the representations should have been made with actual fraudulent intent. If he knows or ought to know the truth and they are intentionally made under such circumstances as show that the party making them intended, or might reasonably have anticipated, that the party to whom they are made, or to whom they are to be communicated, will rely and act on them as true, and the latter has so relied and acted on them, so that to permit the former to deny their truth will operate as a fraud, the former is, in order to prevent the fraud estopped to deny their truth. Coleman v Pearce, 26 Minn. 123, (1 N.W. 846;) Beebe v. Wilkinson, 30 Minn. 548, (16 N.W. 450.) Nor need the representations be made directly to the party acting on them. It is enough if they were made to another, and intended or expected to be communicated as the...
To continue reading
Request your trial