Court Opinion

ID: 9726892
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:11:43.261916+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:31.761858
License: Public Domain

The following memorandum was filed June 20, 1952:
Broadfoot, J.
(on motion for rehearing). Upon motion for rehearing, the appellant contends that the doctrine of estoppel should not have been invoked in this case for the reason that it was not briefed or argued. He further contends that equitable estoppel cannot be invoked by the respondent, not a party to the transaction nor a privy of any of the parties, and further that no showing is made that the respondent acted to its .detriment because of any representations made by or conduct of the appellant.
It is true that this question was not briefed or argued. What was said in the opinion in regard thereto was not necessary to a determination of the case, and until the question is duly presented we will withdraw all reference to estoppel in the opinion. Therefore, the following portion of the opinion is hereby deleted:
*485Beginning with the last sentence in the first paragraph of the body of the opinion, “The testimony is an attempt to impeach the documents under which he claims title,” and continuing through the next three paragraphs, concluding with the sentence “He took his chance and is now estopped from denying the consequences of his own acts.”
By the Court. — Motion for rehearing is denied without costs.