Sharvey v. Rust

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Sharvey v. Rust

52 N.W. 277, 50 Minn. 97, 1892 Minn. LEXIS 254

DecidedMay 24, 1892

StatusPublished

This text of 52 N.W. 277 (Sharvey v. Rust) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sharvey v. Rust, 52 N.W. 277, 50 Minn. 97, 1892 Minn. LEXIS 254 (Mich. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

Gilfillan, C. J.

The elements of estoppel are wanting in this case. We need mention but one that is essential to an estoppel in pais, which is not in the case. There was no intention to mislead, and, under the circumstances, the plaintiff is not chargeable with culpable negligence in stating that his fees were $6, instead of what they actually were, — some $434. The redemption was made under a judgment in favor of White, Shannon & Reynolds, and made in their name. They were the ostensible, and, as far as plaintiff knew, the real, parties redeeming, and only parties interested in making the redemption. When he was advised by one of those parties that his fees were six dollars, he himself not knowing what they were, and when he, because so advised, stated them at that amount, neither they, nor any one claiming through them, could charge him with negligence in so stating.

Order affirmed.

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

Gilfillan, C. J.

The elements of estoppel are wanting in this case. We need mention but one that is essential to an estoppel in pais, which is not in the case. There was no intention to mislead, and, under the circumstances, the plaintiff is not chargeable with culpable negligence in stating that his fees were $6, instead of what they actually were, — some $434. The redemption was made under a judgment in favor of White, Shannon & Reynolds, and made in their name. They were the ostensible, and, as far as plaintiff knew, the real, parties redeeming, and only parties interested in making the redemption. When he was advised by one of those parties that his fees were six dollars, he himself not knowing what they were, and when he, because so advised, stated them at that amount, neither they, nor any one claiming through them, could charge him with negligence in so stating.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 N.W. 277, 50 Minn. 97, 1892 Minn. LEXIS 254, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sharvey-v-rust-minn-1892.