People v. Brown

Citations

• 67 Ill. 435

Syllabus

<p>1. Estoppel in pais. The doctrine of estoppel is that, when a person, by his words or conduct, voluntarily causes another to believe in the existence of a certain state of things, and induces him to act upon that belief, so as to change his previous position, he will be estopped to aver against the latter a different state of things.</p> <p>2. Same—elements of. In order to create such estoppel, the following elements must be present: 1. There must have been a representation concerning material facts. 2. The representation must have been made with a knowledge of the facts. 3. The party to whom it was made must have been ignorant of the truth of the matter. 4. It must have been made with the intention it would be acted upon. 5. And it must have been acted upon.</p> <p>3. Same—principal element is fraud. The representation must be external to, and not necessarily implied in the transaction itself; and fraud or something tantamount thereto, is the distinctive character of this kind of estoppel.</p> <p>4. Same—doctrine of, does not apply to the State. Public policy, to prevent loss to the State through the negligence of public officers, forbids the application of the doctrine of estoppel to the State, growing out of the conduct and representations of its officers. On the same ground that the government is excused from the consequence of laches, it should not be affected by the negligence or even wilfulness of any one of its officers.</p> <p>5. Where the Auditor, when applied to by the sureties of a collector, gave them, through mistake, an incorrect statement of the collector’s account, which prevented them from obtaining indemnity: Held, that such mistaken statement could not estop the State, in a suit upon the collect- or’s bond against such sureties, from recovering the true amount due the State.</p>