Brayton v. Harding

Appellate Court of Illinois

Brayton v. Harding

56 Ill. App. 362, 1894 Ill. App. LEXIS 742

DecidedDecember 13, 1894

StatusPublished

This text of 56 Ill. App. 362 (Brayton v. Harding) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brayton v. Harding, 56 Ill. App. 362, 1894 Ill. App. LEXIS 742 (Ill. Ct. App. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice Harker

delivered the opinion oe the Court.

There is no controversy over the facts in this case, and about the only serious question involved, is whether appellee is estopped from claiming the goods as against the execution by reason of his letter to Cowan & Co., and his failure to disclose the nature of his contract with Higgins. By the terms of that contract the sale to Higgins ivas only conditional, dependent upon Higgins making the payments specified. It was specifically agreed that ownership in the property should remain in appellee until paid for, and he was given the right td take immediate possession of the entire stock on failure of Higgins to pay at the times specified. The latter contained no intimation that the sale was other than an-absolute and unconditional one. It was the duty of appellee under the circumstances to disclose the nature of his claim upon the property.

It is immaterial whether appellee intended a fraud upon Cowan & Co. at the time he wrote the letter. If the effect of the letter was to mislead Cowan & Co. to their injury, and such was the reasonable and probable consequence of it, it was sufficient to estop him.

The doctrine of estoppel will apply where the acts of a party against whom it is applied induce the conduct of an innocent party and produce a fraudulent result. It is not essential that intentional fraud be shown. Flower v. Elwood, 66 Ill. 438; Kinnear v. Mackey, 85 Ill. 96; Robbins v. Moore, 129 Ill. 30.

The judgment will be reversed for the reason that appellee is estopped from claiming the property as against the execution held by appellant, and the cause remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Presiding Justice Harker

delivered the opinion oe the Court.

There is no controversy over the facts in this case, and about the only serious question involved, is whether appellee is estopped from claiming the goods as against the execution by reason of his letter to Cowan & Co., and his failure to disclose the nature of his contract with Higgins. By the terms of that contract the sale to Higgins ivas only conditional, dependent upon Higgins making the payments specified. It was specifically agreed that ownership in the property should remain in appellee until paid for, and he was given the right td take immediate possession of the entire stock on failure of Higgins to pay at the times specified. The latter contained no intimation that the sale was other than an-absolute and unconditional one. It was the duty of appellee under the circumstances to disclose the nature of his claim upon the property.

It is immaterial whether appellee intended a fraud upon Cowan & Co. at the time he wrote the letter. If the effect of the letter was to mislead Cowan & Co. to their injury, and such was the reasonable and probable consequence of it, it was sufficient to estop him.

The doctrine of estoppel will apply where the acts of a party against whom it is applied induce the conduct of an innocent party and produce a fraudulent result. It is not essential that intentional fraud be shown. Flower v. Elwood, 66 Ill. 438; Kinnear v. Mackey, 85 Ill. 96; Robbins v. Moore, 129 Ill. 30.

The judgment will be reversed for the reason that appellee is estopped from claiming the property as against the execution held by appellant, and the cause remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 Ill. App. 362, 1894 Ill. App. LEXIS 742, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brayton-v-harding-illappct-1894.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack