Eickelberg v. Soper

Citations

• 1 S.D. 563
• 47 N.W. 953
• 1891 S.D. LEXIS 56

Syllabus

<p>1. Where one, about to buy real estate, against which various judgments appear of record to be liens, applies to the attorney who procured and still has charge of such judgments, for information as to which, if any, of such judgments are unpaid and existing liens, fully informing him at the time of the object of such inquiry, and that he would not buy until all of such judgment lions were discharged, he may, having no knowledge to the contrary, as against such attorney, rely and act upon specific information given him by the attorney in reply to such inquiry.</p> <p>2. And where, being told by such attorney that all of said judgements were paid but one, he pays that, completes his purchase, and takes his deed, believing and relying upon such information, his title thus acquired will not be defeated, in favor of such attorney, by a subsequent execution sale on a judgment which he so represented to be paid, but which in fact was not.</p> <p>3. If he made such misrepresentation innocently, it was his duty, when he discovered his mistake, knowing that the purchaser was relying upon the same, to inform him, so that he might protect his property against the execution sale, but such attorney becoming the purchaser him-. self at such execution sale, he is estopped from asserting his title so obtained against such purchaser and owner.</p> <p>4. Where the equities of a case are plainly apparent, the general rule that no estoppel can be grounded upon a misstatement of facts appearing of record, equally open to both parties, is not so inflexible as to prevent the court from declaring and administering such equities.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.</p>