Case Name: S. O. NORMAN v. ANTHON ECKERN
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1895-04-26
Citations: 60 Minn. 531
Docket Number: No. 9352
Parties: S. O. NORMAN v. ANTHON ECKERN.
Judges: 
Reporter: Minnesota Reports
Volume: 60
Pages: 531–531

Head Matter:
S. O. NORMAN v. ANTHON ECKERN.
April 26, 1895.
No. 9352.
Estoppel in Pais.
The complaint herein stated a good cause of action.
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Norman county, Ives, J., overruling a demurrer to the complaint.
Affirmed.
The complaint alleged in substance that plaintiff took a written lease from one Nelson of premises owned by defendant, on representations by defendant that Nelson was owner; that plaintiff erected improvements, and paid rent to Nelson, who had since become insolvent; that thereafter defendant took possession of the premises, and turned them over to another person, and converted the improvements. The recapitulation of the allegations of the complaint mentioned in the opinion is as follows: (1) That the representations made by the defendant -were so made with the knowledge that plaintiff was about to accept a lease for the property described; (2) that the defendant knew the falsity of the representations; (3) that defendant knew that plaintiff would rely and act upon the information and representations given; (4) that in reliance on such representations the plaintiff accepted the lease, made the improvements, and paid the rent; (5) that the defendant was misled to his prejudice and consequent substantial damage; (6) that the representations were material; (7) that the plaintiff was ignorant of the facts of ownership.
Calkins é Sharpe, for appellant.
Michael A. Brattland, for respondent.
Reported in 63 N. W. 170.

Opinion:
COLLINS, J.
The counsel for respondent' recapitulates in the latter part of his brief the allegations of his complaint in a very clear and concise manner, and, as he says, all of the elements of an estoppel in pais are therein stated.
Nothing further need be said, and the order appealed from stands affirmed.