Stevens v. Ludlum

13 L.R.A. 270, 48 N.W. 771, 46 Minn. 160, 1891 Minn. LEXIS 264

• Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota
• Decided: May 11, 1891
• Status: Published

Opinion

Gilfillan, C. J.

The facts found by the court below are sufficient to create an equitable estoppel against defendant as to the ownership of the concern doing business as the “New York Pie Company.” To raise such an estoppel, it is not necessary that the representations should have been made with actual fraudulent intent. If he knows or ought to know the truth, and they are intentionally made under such circumstances as show that the party making them intended, or might reasonably have anticipated, that the party to whom they are made, or to whom they are to be communicated, will rely and act on them as true, and the latter has so relied and acted on them, so that to permit the former to deny their truth will operate as a fraud, the former is, in order to prevent the fraud, estopped to deny their truth. Coleman v. Pearce, 26 Minn. 123, (1 N. W. Rep. 846;) Beebe v. Wilkinson, 30 Minn. 548, (16 N. W. Rep. 450.) Nor need the representations be made directly to the party acting on them. It is enough if they were made to another, and intended or expected to be communicated as the representations of the party making them to the party acting on them, for him to rely and act on. “The representation may be intended for a particular individual alone, or for several, or for the public, or for any one of a particular class, or it may be made to A., to be communicated to B. Any one so intended by the party making the representation will be entitled to relief or redress against him, by acting on the representation to his damage.” Bigelow, Fraud, 445. If one act on a representation not made to nor intended for him, he will do so at his own risk. An instance of a right to act on a representation not made directly to the person acting on it, but intended for him if he had occasion to act on it, is furnished by Pence v. Arbuckle, 22 Minn. 417. The representations a business man makes to a bank or commercial agency, especially to the latter, relating to his business or to his pecuniary responsibility, are among those expected to be communicated to others for them to act on. The business of a commercial agency is to get such information as it can relative to the business and pecuniary ability of business men and business concerns, and commu liicate it to such of its patrons as may have occasion to apply for it. Any one making representations to such an agency, relating to his business or the business of any concern with which he is connected, must know, must be held to intend, that whatever he so represents will be communicated by the agency to any patron who may have occasion to inquire. His representations are intended as much for the patrons of the agency, and for them to act on, as for the agency itself. When the representations so made are communicated, as those of the person making them, to a patron of the agency, and he relies and acts on them, he is in position to claim an estoppel.

The findings of fact in the case are fully sustained by the evidence.

Order affirmed.