24 Wash. 572 | Wash. | 1901
Tlie opinion of the court was delivered by
On the 23d day of February, 1898, Amos Brown, since deceased, Annie M. Brown, his wife, James D. Bowman and Mary R. Bowman, his wife, the three last named being appellants in this action, were the owners of certain real estate in the city of Seattle, and leased the same to one Ida U. Oort for a period of five years. The lease was properly recorded, and the lessee went into possession and occupation of the demised premises, and held the same until the 1st day of March, 1898, when, with the written consent of the said lessors, she assigned the said lease to the American Amusement Company, a corporation. Said corporation remained in possession of the demised premises until the 29th day of August, 1898, when, in a certain action in which the American Amusement Company was defendant, one Merkel was appointed receiver and directed to take possession of all the assets of the corporation, including its interest in the demised premises. Said receiver immediately took possession of the premises, and, under the direction of the superior court of King
It is alleged by the appellants that the court erred in permitting the respondent to file an amended answer; that, after the issues in the case had been made up in the court below and the cause placed upon the trial calendar, and shortly prior to thé trial, the respondent applied for leave -to file his so-called amended answer. It is claimed that in his original answer he had pleaded a surrender and cancellation of the outstanding unexpired' lease held by the American Amusement Company as assignee of Ida E. Cort, and that thereupon the appellants had entered into an express agreement with him whereby he was to have possession of the premises described in the complaint for a period of one year at the rate of $150 per month; that, in his amended answer, the respondent abandoned the defense pleaded in his original answer, and pleaded certain facts by way of an equitable estoppel. It is insisted that this is a departure which should not have been tolerated. It is said'by the respondent in
This, in our opinion, decides the remaining four assignments of error, viz: (2) That the court erred in permitting proof of facts tending to establish an estoppel in pais; (3) that the court erred in denying plaintiffs’ motion for judgment .made at the close of the case; (I) that the court erred in denying plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial; (5) that the court erred in refusing to give plaintiffs’ requested instructions; for, if the new answer was properly admitted, the court committed no error in permitting proof of facts tending to establish an estoppel in pais, even if it could be said that such a proof could not have been admitted under the first answer ; and, if
“If a. person knowingly and voluntarily so conducts himself in relation to his business as to justify persons dealing with him in supposing and believing that a certain state of facts exists, and such persons do deal with him relying on that inference and belief, the person so conducting himself will not afterwards be permitted to deny that such state of facts did exist, to the prejudice of persons acting upon such belief. Therefore, if you find from a preponderance of the evidence that in-May, 1899, the defendant Baruch applied to the plaintiff I. D. Low-man to rent the premises in question for a year or more, and that Mr. Lowman referred Baruch to the plaintiff .A. L. Brown, stating that Brown had the management of the property and that whatever arrangement Baruch made with Brown would be satisfactory to Lowman, or if you find that Lowman in any form of words informed Baruch in substance that he might deal with Brown in leasing the property, then Baruch had the right to deal with Brown as the p duly authorized agent of Lowman, even though Lowman might not in fact have given any authority to Brown. The law would not permit Lowman to now deny that Brown was his agent nor to deny that Brown had authority to act for Lowman in dealing with Baruch. And if you believe from the evidence that Baruch, relying on such statements of Lowman, informed A. L. Brown that he would not rent the property unless he could have possession of it for at least one year and that if he could have it for that time he would spend money in fitting it up and in getting ready to use the property as a place of public amusement, and if you further believe that 'Brown then stated or represented to Baruch that he (Brown) had authority to lease the place and that if Baruch would take it for one year his lease for that time would be valid and his possession undisturbed, and if you*577 further believe that Baruch believed these statements and representations of Brown and relied on them, and relying on them, entered into a verbal agreement with Brown, whereby Brown agreed that Baruch should have the property for one year at $150 per month and Baruch agreed to take it for that time at that rate, and that thereafter Baruch entered into possession of it and spent money in fitting up the place and preparing to use it as a place of public amusement, then you will find a verdict for defendant Baruch.”
This, we think, was the proper statement of the law of estoppel, as applied to this case; and there was sufficient evidence, although that between Bowman and Baruch was somewhat conflicting, to sustain a finding of estoppel. It may be said here that there is no question arising between any of the lessees of the property and Baruch, but the contest is between Baruch and the owners of the property. There is also some question raised as to the community interest of Mrs. Bowman, but, from Bowman’s testimony, it does not appear that his wife had any interest in the estate.
The judgment is affirmed.
Beavis, C. B, and Fulleeton, Mount and Andees, •TB, concur.
