"Equitable estoppel is not applied in favor of a volunteer ;" [1898] 1 Ch. 82. An unexe cuted contract void as against public policy cannot be validated by invoking the doctrine of estoppel ; Robinson v. Patterson, 71 Mich. 141, 39 N. W. 21; McKinney v. Development Co., 167 Fed. 770, 93 C. C. A. 258.
The doctrine that estoppels bind not only parties, but privies of blood, law, and estate, is said to apply equally to this class of estop pels ; Bigelow, Estop. 554, 629 ; but a ward cannot be estopped by an act of his guard ian which the other party to the agreement knew to be unauthorized ; Heisen v. Heisen, 145 Ill. 658, 34 N. E. 597, 21 L. R. A. 434.
An agent or attorney having received mon ey for his principal is in general estopped to deny his liability to pay it over to him, but it is a good defence that he was divested of the property or required to pay over the mon ey by one having a paramount title ; Moss Mercantile Co. v. Bank, 47 Or. 361, 82 Pac. 8, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 657, and note, 8 Ann. Cas. 569.
One who accepts a benefit under a will is thereby estopped to deny its validity ; Drake v. Wild, 70 Vt. 52, 39 Atl. 248 ; Branson v. Wat kins, 96 Ga. 55, 23 S. E. 204 ; Fry v. Morrison, 159 Ilk 244, 42 N. E. 774 ; Utermehle v. Nor ment, 197 U. S. 40, 25 Sup. Ct. 291, 49 L. Ed. 655, 3 Ann. Cas. 520 ; though ignorant of the rule of law on the subject; id.
At common law there was no estoppel against the sovereign ; 10 Mod. 199, and the doctrine is applied in some states ; State v. Williams, 94 N. C. 891; but, as appears su pra, the state has been held estopped by mat ter of record and by deed. The weight of au thority is against the estoppel of the govern went by matter in pais, though it has been questioned whether there should not be ; 19 Harv. L. Rev. 126 ; and where the sovereign asserts a pecuniary demand in court, it has been applied, though with hesitation ; Walk er v. U. S., 139 Fed. 409, where it was held that acts of officers of the United States, au thorized to shape its conduct as.to the trans action, may work an estoppel against the government. As to estoppels against the state or the United States, see note to State of Michigan v. Jackson, L. & S. R. Co., 16 C. C. A. 353.
Estoppel has been sustained as against a municipal corporation ; Beadles v. Smyser, 209 U. S. 393, 28 Sup. Ct. 522, 52 L. Ed. 849 ; and it has been held that an estoppel in pais (by reason of a mistake of an officer which misled a person searching records) cannot be set up against a municipal government ; Phil adelphia Mortgage & Trust Co. v. Omaha, 63 Neb. 280, 88 N. W. 523, 93 Am. St. Rep. 442 ; but in a note on this case it is contended that the doctrine of estoppel is available as against the sovereign ; 15 Harv. L. Rev. 737. It is sometimes said, though usually denied, that there can be no estoppel against alleg ing unconstitutionality, and for an examina tion of cases on this point, see 21 Harv. L.
Rev. 133. It is also held that parties cannot estop themselves by a contract "in the face of an act of parliament"; 14 Ch. D. 432.
An estoppel against one of two joint plain tiffs, whose right is to a joint recovery, will defeat the action ; McIntosh v. Dierken, 222 Pa. 612, 72 Atl. 232 ; one who applies for company shares in a fictitious name will not be permitted to deny liability as a share holder ; 5 Manson 336.
Where the facts are undisputed, the ques tion whether they amount to an estoppel is one of law for the court ; Keating v. Orne, 77 Pa. 89; Cox v. Rogers, 77 Pa. 160 ; Lewis v. Carstairs, 5 W. & S. (Pa.) 205. Otherwise the facts are of course to be submitted to the jury under proper instructions as to what will constitute an estoppel.
The maxim vigilantibus non dornvientibus leges adjuvant specially applies to a claim of equitable estoppel, since in such cases the interposition of equity is extraordinary and restrictive of what but for the estoppel would be a clear legal right ; Marvel v. Ortlip, 3 Del. Ch. 9. The representations must be such as to lead a reasonably prudent man to act on them and he must have done this in ig norance of the truth and in good faith ; Da vis v. Pryor, 112 Fed. 274, 50 C, C. A. 579.
This principle has been applied to cases of dedication of land to the public use ; Cincin nati v. White, 6 Pet. (U. S.) 433, 8 L. Ed. 452 ; Hobbs v. Inhabitants of Lowell, 19 Pick. (Mass.) 405, 31 Am. Dec. 145 ; of the owner's standing by and seeing land improved; Fa vill v. Roberts, 50 N. Y. 222 ; Smith v. Mc Neal, 68 Pa. 164; Truesdail v. Ward, 24 Mich. 134; Forbes v. McCoy, 24 Neb. 702, 40 N. W. 132 ; Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. R. Co., 84 Ala. 570, 3 South. 286, 5 Am. St. Rep. 401; Robertson v. Winchester, 85 Tenn. 171, 1 S. W. 781; Stone v. Tyree, 30 W. Va. 687, 5 S. E. 878 ; Marines v. Goblet, 31 S. C. 153, 9 S. E. 803, 17 Am. St. Rep. 22 ; or sold ; Epley v. Witherow, 7 Watts (Pa.) 168 ; Thompson v. Sanborn, 11 N. H. 201, 35 Am. Dec. 490; Morrison v. Morrison's Widow, 2 Dana (Ky.) 13 ; Snodgrass v. Ricketts, 13 Cal. 359 ; Shapley v. Rangeley, 1 Woodb. & M. 213, Fed. Cas. No. 12,707 ; Titus v. Morse, 40 Me. 348, 63 Am. Dec. 665 ; Planet Property & Fi nancial Co. v. Ry. Co., 115 Mo. 613, 22 S. W. 616 ; without making any claim ; Planet Property & Financial Co. v. Ry. Co., 115 Mo. 613, 22 S. W. 616; Winters v. Armstrong, 37 Fed. 508 ; Griffeth v. Brown, 76 Cal. 260, 18 Pac. 372 ; Weinstein v. Bank, 69 Tex. 38, 6 S. W. 171, 5 Am. St. Rep. 23 ; Bynum v. Pres ton, 69 Tex. 287, 6 S. W. 428, 5 Am. St. Rep. 49 ; McMartin v. Ins. Co., 41 Minn. 198, 42 N. W. 934 ; Irvine v. Scott, 85 Ky. 260, 3 S. W. 163. But the owner is not estopped by the unlawful occupation of a trespasser for less than the legal period of limitation ; Woll v. Voight, 105 Minn. 371, 117 N. W. 608, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 270, and note.