Lewis v. Carstairs

5 Watts & Serg. 205
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedMarch 15, 1843
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 5 Watts & Serg. 205 (Lewis v. Carstairs) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lewis v. Carstairs, 5 Watts & Serg. 205 (Pa. 1843).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Whether an estoppel results from established facts, is a question for the determination of the court; and the Judge, seems not to have gone far enough in submitting the question of equitable estoppel, so to call it, to the jury. The presumptive evidence of right by grant, from the contribution to the laying of pipes within twenty years, being entitled to no artificial force from length of time, was properly left to the jury on its natural tendency to produce conviction; and had the contest been between the original parties to the supposed grant, all would have been well. But there is a purchaser in the case; and evidence of positive,- but deceptive acts of acquiescence on the other side, which may have misled him, it is said, as to the true state of the right, is of a different stamp. As it can never appear whether a purchaser has been actually prejudiced by such acts, the possibility of injury to him is enough to raise an equitable estoppel by operation of law. His opponent is estopped from denying the right on whose existence he gave the purchaser reason to confide. Perhaps sufficient care was not taken in the opinion delivered by this court to distinguish between the natural presumption of a grant, which is clearly for the jury; and deceptive acts of encouragement to a purchaser, which are as clearly for the court. Viewed as evidence of a grant between the former parties, the effect of taking contribution from Mr Biddle for laying pipes, was mat[210]*210ter of fact: viewed as an act which may have encouraged the defendant to believe in the existence of such a grant, it was matter of law.

Judgment reversed, and a venire de novo awarded.

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

Related

Commonwealth v. Johns
64 Pa. D. & C. 35 (Lawrence County Court of Common Pleas, 1948)
Converse v. Paret
77 A. 429 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1910)
Pittsburg Construction Co. v. West Side Belt Railroad
75 A. 1029 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1909)
Keating v. Orne
77 Pa. 89 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1875)
Ackla v. Ackla
6 Pa. 228 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1847)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
5 Watts & Serg. 205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lewis-v-carstairs-pa-1843.