Cited by

Ham v. Wheaton, 61 Minn. 212 , ; Edlund v. St.

Dimond v. Manheim, 61 Minn. 178 , .

Dimond v. Manheim, 61 Minn. 178 , ; Friend v. Friend, supra, page 31., *226 It is also claimed that the offers of proof should have been received in proof of waiver as a legal defense.

Dimond v. Manheim, 61 Minn. 178 , .

Equitable estoppel, in the modern sense, arises from the ‘conduct’ of a party, using that word in its broadest meaning, as including his spoken or written words, his positive acts, and his silence or negative omission to do anything.” Mitchell, J., in Dimond v. Manheim, 61 Minn. 178, 181 , .

§ 3204; Wright v. Tanner, 92 Minn. 94 , ; Beebe r. Wilkinson, 30 Minn. 548 , ; Baker v. Taylor, 54 Minn. 71 , ; Kiewel v. Tanner, 105 Minn. 50 , , 25 L. R. A. (N. S.) 772; Dimond v. Manheim, 61 Minn. 178 , ; Neubauer v. Gabriel, 86 Wis.

701; Cochran v. Stewart, 57 Minn. 499 , ; Dimond v. Manheim, 61 Minn. 178 , ; Steffens v. Nelson, 94 Minn. 365 , ; Bofferding v. Alden, 134 Minn. 482 , ; Havel v. Costello, 144 Minn. 441 , .

The principles governing the doctrine of equitable estoppel are so well stated in Dimond v. Manheim, 61 Minn. 178 , , and in other cases in this state, that a statement of them here would be useless repetition.

This does not differ much from the doctrine of estoppel, for although fraudulent intent is not an essential element of the conduct working an equitable estoppel (Dimond v. Manheim, 61 Minn. 178 , ), yet in very case of equitable estoppel “it may with perfect propriety be said that it would be fraudulent for the party to repudiate his conduct, and to assert a right or claim in contravention thereof.” 2 Pomeroy, Eq.

Tested by the rules stated in Dimond v. Manheim, 61 Minn. 178 , ; Bell v. Goodnature, 50 Minn. 417 , ; Bigelow, Estoppel, (6th ed.) 651, as well as by the authorities first herein cited, we think the conclusions of law are clearly in accordance with the facts found or admitted.

The same claim was made in Dimond v. Manheim, 61 Minn. 178 , , where the court recognized the general rule that, when the title of a party sufficiently appears of record, mere silence on his part is no violation of duty, and does not estop him from asserting his title as against others dealing with the property as another’s, but stated that this rule was subject

Dimond v. Manheim, 61 Minn. 178, 183 , .

Ham v. Wheaton, 61 Minn. 212 , ; Kosloski v. Kelly, 122 Wis.

These propositions are, in part, in the language of Mitchell, J., in Dimond v. Manheim, 61 Minn. 178 , at page 182, , and, in part, in that of Smith, J., in Schott v. Linscott, 80 Kan.

See Dimond v. Manheim, 61 Minn. 178 , .

See Ham v. Wheaton, 61 Minn. 212 , .

Bausman v. Faue, 45 Minn. 412 , ; Dimond v. Manheim, 61 Minn. 178 , .

Dimond v. Manheim, supra, p. 178, .