QUASI-ESTOPPEL. A term used by Bigelow to cover a group of cases in which a party is precluded from occupying inconsistent posi tions, either in litigations or in ordinary dealings ; Big. Est. (6th ed.) 732. The prin ciple covers a variety of cases under wills where a party who elects to take a benefit is required to give effect to an otherwise void devise ; 31 Ch. D. 466 ; or appointment ; 2 Atk. 88 ; or one taking a benefit under it can not dispute the validity of a deed ; Pickett v. Bank, 32 Ark. 346; Robinson v. Pebworth, 71 Ala. 240 ; Jacobs v. Miller, 50 Mich. 119, 15 N. W. 42; Wood v. Seely, 32 N. Y. 105; or of a contract of affreightment ; The Wa ter Witch, 1 Black (U. S.) 494, 17 L. Ed. 155. So also a person who has procured the en actment of a statute and received benefits under it, is precluded from alleging its un constitutionality ; Vose v. Cockcroft, 44 N. Y. 415 ; Sherman v. McKeon, 38 N. Y. 266 ; Cloud v. Coleman, 1 Bush (Ky.) 548 ; one who has petitioned for opening a street or acquiesced in it cannot dispute the validity of the assessment for it ; City of Burlington v. Gilbert, 31 Ia. 356, 7 Am. Rep. 143 ; Ap peal of Ferson, 96 Pa. 140.
It has been held that a party, who in a cause applies for affirmative relief, is estop ped from setting up an original lack of juris diction ; Thompson v. Greer, 62 Kan. 522, 64
Pac. 48; Chandler v. Bank, 149 Ind. 601, 49 N. E. 579 ; Lower v. Wilson, 9 S. D. 252, 68 N. W. 545, 62 Am. St. Rep. 865; F. C. Austin Mfg. Co. v. Hunter, 16 Okl. 86, 86 Pac. 293 ; Champion v. R. Co., 145 Mich. 676, 108 N. W. 1078 ; Montague v. Marunda, 71 Neb. 805, 99 N. W. 653 ; contra, Freer v. Davis, 52 W. Va. 1, 43 S. E. 164, 59 L. R. A. 556, 94 Am. St. Rep. 895 ; State v. Dist. Court of Second Ju dicial Dist., 34 Mont. 226, 85 Pac. 1022 ; and it is suggested that the latter view should prevail upon the principle that consent can never give jurisdiction ; 20 Harv. L. Rev. 150, 237.
It is to be noted that in the cases grouped under this title the courts have generally used the simple term "estoppel" which, it has been suggested, is a questionable use of terms, since many of the cases are mere in stances of ratification or acquiescence ; Big. Est. 755.
Estoppel in pais need not be pleaded, but this rule is altered in many states ; Big. Est 763.
The doctrine of estoppel is said to be the basis of another equitable doctrine, that of election ; Bisph. Eq. § 294. See ELECTION.