Mayer v. Erhardt

Citations

• 88 Ill. 452

Syllabus

<p>1. Estoppel—-from.party's representations. Where a party sells notes for the payment of which a vendor’s lien is reserved in' his deed, representing that all the other and prior notes have been paid, leaving those sold the only lien, he will be estopped from enforcing his lien as to a prior note against the purchaser, and the latter will have the first lien.</p> <p>2. Same—by representations made in ignorance of facts. Where a party makes a sale on the faith of his representations respecting the title, he will be estopped from asserting a right he may have to the prejudice of such purchaser, and his ignorance of the truth of his representations will not remove the estoppel, if such ignorance is the result of gross negligence.</p> <p>3. Notice—through other agents of same institution. A director of a bank will not be allowed to plead ignorance of a transaction with the bank in order to avoid responsibility for the acts or omissions of himself or his agents, as against third persons. But when the rights of the bank are not involved, but only his individual rights as against another, he will not be held chargeable with notice of a transaction with the bank.</p> <p>4. Former decisions. It was not intended, in the case of The People “v. Brovin ei al. 67 111. 435, to overrule the decision in the case of Smith v. Newton, 38 111. 230, in respect of an estoppel in pais. What is there said applies only to the facts of that case.</p> <p>5. Same—obiter dictum. It is a maxim that general expressions in an opinion are to be taken in connection with the facts of the case, and what is said by way of argument and beyond the case, though entitled to respect, is not authoritative in other eases.</p>