202 N.W. 439 | Minn. | 1925
The findings of the trial court determine that the duplicate copy of the lease as held by the landlord was the true agreement as made by the parties. This finding is amply sustained by the evidence. The result of such findings is that the lease, in the form held by the tenant Davidson, did not express the true agreement *172 and he did not in truth have the option as expressed in his copy of the lease. On the other hand, the plaintiff acquired the other duplicate copy evidencing the true agreement.
Defendant now says, since this difficulty is directly attributable to the acts of Thorbus, plaintiff's grantor, in putting this false lease in the hands of Davidson and then giving his written consent to its assignment to defendant, that the doctrine of estoppel should now protect him and that plaintiff should not be permitted to question the validity of the lease as held by him.
The general elements of estoppel have been well expressed by this court. Dimond v. Manheim,
Affirmed. *173