Green & Middlesworth v. Prettyman
Before: Baldwin
Synopsis
In this case—which was ejectment for fifteen acres of land—the Court instructed the jury that, “ if they believed from the evidence that plaintiffs stood quietly by and saw and knew of defendant’s purchase of the premises, his possession and improvements of the same, and that the defendant purchased the same in good faith and not in fraud of plaintiffs’ rights, and that plaintiffs did not notify him of their claim, then they, the plaintiffs, are estopped from denying his rights Held, that the instruction, taken in connection with the facts, did not correctly state the doctrine of estoppel.
Biddle Boggs v. Merced Mining Co., (14 Cal. 366) as to estoppel, affirmed.
Baldwin, J. delivered the opinion of the Court Field, C. J. concurring.
The Court erred in giving the second instruction asked by the defendant. This instruction, taken in connection with the facts of the record, did not place the doctrine of equitable estoppel correctly before the jury. We have given the true rule in the case of Biddle Boggs v. Merced Mining Co., (14 Cal. 366) and in other cases; and a reference to those decisions will enable the Court on the next trial to instruct the jury, rightly upon this subject.
The other points do not seem to be well taken, but the statement is so imperfect that we do not think it advisable to pass definitely upon them.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)