Case Name: BLOCH v. SAMMONS
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1900-10-08
Citations: 37 Or. 600
Docket Number: 
Parties: BLOCH v. SAMMONS.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 37
Pages: 600–608

Head Matter:
Argued 12 September;
decided 8 October, 1900.
BLOCH v. SAMMONS.
[55 Pac. 438, 62 Pac. 290.]
Amending Bill of Exceptions After Appeal.
1. Where the bill of exceptions as filed in the supreme court is incomplete or incorrect, the proper practice is to secure a proper amendment by the trial court, and then file it as part of the record on appeal. This is preferable to remitting the transcript for correction: State ex rel. v. Estes, 34 Or. 196, followed.
Estoppel — Representation of Title — Fraud.
2. Where one, with full knowledge of all facts, voluntarily represents to an intending purchaser of real estate that he has no interest therein, intending that such representation shall be acted upon, and the purchaser buys in consequence thereof, such conduct will estop the person who made the statements from afterward asserting title in himself, though he may have been ignorant of his rights, and may not have intended .any actual fraud. In such a case fraud will be inferred: House v. Eowle, 22 Or. 303, distinguised.
From Multnomah: Erasmus D. Shattuck, Judge.
Action by Jacob Bloch against Sarah Sammons and Jos. Hubbell to recover possession of real property. Hub-bell alone defended and finally obtained a judgment.
Reversed.
Decided 19 December, 1898.
On Motion to Remit the Transcript to the Trial Court for Correction.
Mr. Lawrence A. McNary, for the motion.
Mr. Edw. Mendenhall, contra.
For appellant there was a brief over the name of Edw. & A. R. Mendenhall, with an oral argument by Mr. Edw. Mendenhall.
For respondent there was a brief over the names of Lawrence A. McNary and Fred L. Keenan, with an oral argument by Mr. McNary.

Opinion:
Mr. Chief Justice Wolverton
delivered the opinion.
This is a motion by respondent Hubbell to remit the transcript of the above cause to the court below for the purpose of having the bill of exceptions there corrected to conform with the facts as they occurred at the trial. The question involved is purely a matter of practice. In the case of State ex rel.v. Estes, 34 Or. 196 (52 Pac. 571), it was held that the bill of exceptions may be corrected in the court below, notwithstanding the cause was pending on appeal. In that case there was an amendment nunc pro tunc by the lower court, and thereupon the amended bill was filed here, and the question came up on motion to strike it from the record. This we refused to do, and approved the practice there adopted. We think it the better one, and therefore deny the present motion to remit the transcript. Motion Overruled.