It has been held that a state may be es topped by deed ; Com. v. Andre's Heirs, 3 Pick. (Mass.) 224; Bartlett Land .& Lumber Co. v. Saunders, 103 U. S. 316, 26 L. Ed. 546 ; State v. Ober, 34 La. Ann. 359 ; Penrose v. Griffith, 4 Binn. (Pa.) 231; and this is said to be "perhaps the better opinion" ; Big. Est. 371; but there are expressions to the con trary, though generally qualified so as not to conflict with the doctrine that the state may be estopped by legislative action; State v. Williams, 94 N. C. 891; Alexander v. State, 56 Ga. 478 ; People v. Brown, 67 Ill. 435 ; but not by official laches or error ; State v. Brewer, 64 Ala. 287 ; U. S. v. Kirkpatrick, 9 Wheat. (U. S.) 735, 6 L. Ed. 199 ; The Floyd Acceptances, 7 Wall. (U. S.) 676, 19 L. Ed. 169.
Br MATTER OF RECORD. Such as arises from the adjudication of a competent court. Judgments of courts of record, and decrees and other final determinations of ecclesias tical, maritime, and military courts, work es toppels ; g B. & Ald. 362 ; Buck v. Collins, 69 Me. 445; Bradner v. Howard, 75 N. Y. 417; Adams v. Adams, 25 Minn. 72 ; Butterfield v. Smith, 101 U. S. 570, 25 L. Ed. 868; Henning v. Warner, 109 N. C. 406, 14 S. E. 317 ; Den ver City Irr: & Water Co. v. Middaugh, 12 Colo. 434, 21 Pac. 565, 13 Am. St. Rep. 234. Admissions in pleadings, either express or implied, cannot afterwards be controverted in a suit between the same parties ; Com. Dig. Estoppel A 1. It is of the essence of estoppel by judgment that it is certain that the precise fact was determined by the for mer judgment ; De Sollar v. Hanscome, 158 U. S. 216, 15 Sup. Ct. 816, 39 L. Ed. 956 ; Nashua & L. R. Corp. v. R., 164 Mass. 226, 41 N. E. 268, 49 Am. St. Rep. 454 ; Empire State Nail Co. v. Button Co., 74 Fed. 868, 21 C. C. A. 152. See RES JUDICATA, where the subject of estoppel by matter of record is treated.
Estoppels by deed and by record are com mon-law doctrines.
Br MATTER IN PAIS. Such as arises from the acts and declarations of a person by which he designedly induces another to alter his position injuriously to himself ; Brown v. Wheeler, 17 Conn. 345, 44 Am. Dec. 550 ; Kinney v. Farnsworth, 17 Conn. 355 ; Frost v. Ins. Co., 5 Denio (N. Y.) 154, 49 Am. Dec. 234 ; Ensel v. Levy, 46 Ohio St. 255, 19 N. E. 597; Tousley v. Board of Education, 39 Minn. 419, 40 N. W. 509; Pennypacker v. Latimer, 10 Idaho 618, 81 Pac. 55 ; Harrison National Bank of Cadiz, Ohio, v. Austin, 65 Neb. 632, 91 N. W. 540, 59 L. R. A. 294, 101 Am. St. Rep. 639. See Humphreys v. Finch, 97 N. C. 303, 1 S. E. 870, 2 Am. St. Rep. 293 ; Joyce v. Ry. Co., 43 III. App. 157 ; Valle v. City of In dependence, 116 Mo. 333, 22 S. W. 695 ; West brook v. Guderian, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 406, S. W. 59. Equitable estoppel, or estoppel by conduct, is said to have 'its foundation in fraud, considered in its most' general sense; Bisph. Eq. § 282. It is said (Bigelow, Estop. 437) that the following elements must be present in order to constitute an estoppel by conduct: 1. There must have been a repro sentation or concealment of material fact 2. The representation must have been mad with knowledge of the facts. 3. The part;
to whom it was made must have been ig norant of the truth of the matter. 4. I must have been made with the intention tha the other party would act upon it. 5. Th other party must have been induced to ac upon it. Ergenbright v. Henderson, 72 Bar 29, 82 Pac. 524 ; Blodgett v. Perry, 97 Mc 263, 10 S. W. 891, 10 Am. Si Rep. 307. Bynum v. Preston, 69 Tex. 287, 6 S. W. 42E 5 Am. St. Rep. 49 ; Tiedm. Eq. Jur. 107. Th rule of equitable estoppel is, that where on by his acts, declarations, or silence where i is his duty to speak, has induced another in reliance on such acts„ declarations, o silence, to enter into a transaction, he she.] not, to the prejudice of the person mie led, impeach the transaction ; per Bates, in Marvel v. Ortlip, 3 Del. Ch. 9 ; Woodruff v. Morristown Instit. for Savings, 34 Is J. Eq. 174 ; Miles v. Lefi, 60 Ia. 168, 14 N. ' 233; Stowe v. U. S., 19 Wall. (U. S.) 13, 2' L. Ed. 144 ; Davis v. Williams, 49 Ia. 83 Griffin v. City of Lawrence, 135 Miss. 365 Given v. Printing Co., 114 Fed. 92, 52 C.' C A. 40 ; Linton v. Ins. Co., 104 Fed. 584, 44 C C. A. 54 ; Greer v. Mitchell, 42 W. Va. 499 26 S. E. 302. "He who by his language o -conduct leads another to do what he wind' not otherwise have done shall not subjec such person to loss or injury by disappoint big the expectations upon which he acted. Dickerson v. Colgrove, 100 U. S. 578, 25 L. Ed 618, where an estoppel m poils in regard t real estate was held to have been created a letter disavowing intention to claim th same.
Representations, in order to constitute estoppel must be made to induce the othe party to act, and he must have been so to act ; Booth v. Lenox, 45 Fla. 191, 3 South. 566 ; Welty v. Vulgamore, 24 Ohio C C. 572; to his.injury ; Appeal of Columbus, & H. R. Co., 109 Fed. 177, 48 C. C. A. 27E They must amount to misrepresentation o concealment of material facts ; Brian v. Bor villain, 111 La. 441, 35 South. 632; Minin Co. v. Juab County, 22 Utah 395, 62 Pa( 1024 ; Atkinson v. Plum, 50 W. Va. 104, 40 E. 587, 58 L. R. A. 788 ; of which the othe party is actually and permissively ignorant City of Ft. Scott v. Brokerage Co., 117 Fec 51, 54 C. C. A. 437; or such negligence a amounts to fraud in law ; Dye v. Crary, 1 N. Mex. 439, 85 Pac. 1038 ; 9 L. R. A. (N. S 1136, affirmed, 208 U. S. 515, 28 Sup. Ct. 361 52 L. Ed. 595. In some cases it is held the there need not be intent to deceive ; Maxo v. Lane, 124 Ind. 592, 24 N. E. 683 ; Roger v. St. Ry., 100 Me. 86, 60 Atl. 713, 70 L. R. 2 574 ; Vanneter v. Crossman, 42 Mich. 465, N. W. 216 ; Lydick v. Gill, 68 Neb. 273, 94 / W. 109; Globe Nay. Co. v. Casualty Co., 3 Wash. 299, 81 Pac. 826; contra, see Stiff 1 Ashton, 155 Mass. 130, 29 N. E. 203 ; Beacon Trust Co. v. Souther, 183 Mass. 413, 67 N. E. 345 ; Pearson v. Hardin, 95 Mich. 360, 54 N. W. 904 ; Centennial Eureka Min. Co. v. Juab County, 22 Utah 395, 62 Pac. 1024. There is no estoppel by acts in pais done un der a misapprehension of facts induced by the party setting up the estoppel ; Mason v. St. Albans Furniture Co., 149 Fed. 898.