Lillard v. Board of County Commissioners

Citations

• 102 Kan. 822
• 172 P. 518
• 1918 Kan. LEXIS 150

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Estoppel — Consistency of Conduct Required. The doctrine of estoppel requires of a party consistency of conduct when inconsistency would work substantial injury to the other party.</p> <p>2. Condemnation Proceedings — County Warrant Issued — Ownership of Warrant — Arbitration—Estoppel. A landowner entitled to a warrant for certain condemnation money, instead of demanding its delivery, submitted to the county board the question whether he or his grantee was entitled to such warrant, stating, among other things, that he felt “sure that when the facts are known by you, that no better tribunal can be found to decide our relative rights than your Honorable Body.” Thereafter the vendee appeared before the board, and upon his showing the warrant was delivered to him. Later the vendor sued the board to recover the amount and value of the warrant. Held, that he is estopped.</p>