Comprehending laws and contracts is impossible, unless we first learn the meaning of the words and phrases they contain.

Moderator: notmartha

Post Reply
User avatar
Posts: 771
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm


Post by notmartha » Wed Oct 19, 2016 4:44 pm

Also see Conclusion.




Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language, 1828
In law, a stop; a plea in bar, grounded on a man's own act or deed, which estops or precludes him from averring any thing to the contrary.
If a tenant for years levies a fine to another person, it shall work as an estoppel to the cognizor.
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856
ESTOPPEL, pleading.

1. An estoppel is a preclusion, in law, which prevents a man from alleging or denying a fact, in consequence of his own previous act, allegation or denial of a contrary tenor. Stepb. Pl. 239. Lord Coke says, " an estoppel is, when a man is concluded by his own act or acceptance, to say the truth." Co. Litt. 352, a. And Blackstone defines "an estoppel to be a special plea in bar, which happens where a man has done some act, or executed some deed, which estops or precludes him from averring any thing to the contrary. 3 Cora. 308. Estoppels are odious in law; 1 Serg. & R. 444; they are not admitted in equity against the truth. Id. 442. Nor can jurors be estopped from saying the truth, because they are sworn to do so, although they are estopped from finding against the admission of the parties in their pleadings. 2 Rep. 4; Salk. 276; B. N. P. 298; 2 Barn. & Ald. 662; Angel on Water Courses, 228 9. See Co. Litt. 352, a, b, 351, a. notes.

2. An estoppel may, arise either from matter of record; from the deed of the party; or from matter in Pays; that is, matter of fact.

3. Thus, any confession or admission made in pleading, in a court of record, whether it be express, or implied from pleading over without a traverse, will forever preclude the party from afterwards contesting the same fact in any subsequent suit with his adversary. Com. Dig. Estoppel, A 1. This is an estoppel by matter of record.

4. As an instance of an estoppel by deed, may be mentioned the case of a bond reciting a certain fact. The party executing that bond, will be precluded from afterwards denying in any action brought upon that instrument, the fact , so recited. 5 Barn. & Ald. 682.

5. An example of an estoppel by matter in pays occurs when one man has accepted rent of another. He will be estopped from afterwards denying, in any action, with that person, that he was, at the time of such acceptance, his tenant. Com. Dig. Estoppel, A 3 Co. Litt. 352, a.

6. This doctrine of law gives rise to a kind of pleading that is neither by way of traverse, nor confession. and avoidance: viz. a pleading, that, waiving any question of fact, relies merely on the estoppel, and, after stating the previous act, allegation, or denial, of the opposite party, prays judgment, if he shall be received or admitted to aver contrary to what he before did or said. This pleading is called pleading by way of estoppel. Steph. 240a

7. Every estoppel ought to be reciprocal, that is, to bind both parties: and this is the reason that regularly a stranger shall neither take advantage or be bound by an estoppel. It should be directly affirmative, and not by inference nor against an estoppel. Co. Lit. 352, a, b; 1 R. 442 3; 9 Serg. & R. 371, 430; 4 Yeates' 38 1 Serg. & R. 444; Corn. Dig. Estoppel, C 3 Johns. Cas. 101; 2 Johns. R. 382; 8 W. & S. 135; 2 Murph. 67; 4 Mont. 370. Privies in blood, privies in estate, and privies in law, are bound by, and may take advantage of estoppels. Co. Litt. 352; 2 Serg. & Rawle, 509; 6 Day, R. 88. See the following cases relating to estoppels by; Matter of record: 4 Mass. R. 625; 10 Mass. R. 155; Munf. R. 466; 3 East, R. 354; 2 Barn. & Ald. 362, 971; 17 Mass. R. 365; Gilm. R. 235; 5 Esp. R. 58; 1 Show. 47; 3 East, R. 346. Matter of writing: 12 Johns. R. 347; 5 Mass. R. 395; Id. 286; 6 Mass. R. 421; 3 John. Cas. 174; 5 John. R. 489; 2 Caines' R. 320; 3 Johns. R. 331; 14 Johns. R. 193; Id. 224; 17 Johns. R. 161; Willes, R. 9, 25; 6 Binn. R. 59; 1 Call, R. 429; 6 Munf. R. 120; 1 Esp. R. 89; Id. 159; Id. 217; 1 Mass. R. 219. Matter in pays: 4 Mass. R. 181; Id. 273 15 Mass. R. 18; 2 Bl. R. 1259; 1 T. R. 760, n.; 3 T. R. 14; 6 T. R. 62; 4 Munf. 124; 6 Esp. R. 20; 2 Ves. 236; 2 Camp. R. 844; 1 Stark. R. 192. And see, in general, 10 Vin. Abr. 420, tit. Estoppel; Bac. Abr. Pleas, 111; Com. Dig. Estoppel; Id. Pleader, S 5; Arch. Civ. Pl. 218; Doct. Pl. 255; Stark. Ev. pt. 2, p. 206, 302; pt. 4, p. 30; 2 Smith's Lead. Cas. 417 460. Vide Term.

The Century Dictionary, an Encyclopedic Lexicon of the English Language, 1895
estoppel cent.JPG
estoppel cent.JPG (117.78 KiB) Viewed 3969 times
estoppel 2 cent.JPG
estoppel 2 cent.JPG (49.03 KiB) Viewed 3969 times

Black’s Law Dictionary, 1st edition, 1891
estoppel blacks 1.JPG
estoppel blacks 1.JPG (124.89 KiB) Viewed 3969 times

Wex Legal Dictionary

A bar that prevents one from asserting a claim or right that contradicts what one has said or done before, or what has been legally established as true. Estoppel may be used as a bar to the relitigation of issues or as an affirmative defense.
Estoppel by Silence

A type of estoppel that prevents someone from asserting something when that person had both the duty and the opportunity to speak up earlier, and his or her silence put another person at a disadvantage.
Estoppel by Deed

A legal principle that prevents a person from asserting or denying the truth of anything that he or she stated in a deed, especially regarding who has valid ownership of property.
Offensive Collateral Estoppel

A doctrine asserted by a plaintiff (the person in the offensive position) that prevents a defendant from relitigating an issue that was previously decided against that defendant in a case with a different plaintiff.
Promissory Estoppel

The doctrine allowing recovery on a promise made without consideration when the reliance on the promise was reasonable, and the promisee relied to his or her detriment.
Collateral Estoppel

The doctrine of collateral estoppel, a common law legacy codified by Ashe v. Swenson 397 U.S. 436 (1970), protects criminal defendants from being tried for the same issue in more than one criminal trial. In Ashe v. Swenson, the Court ruled that the aegis of the Fifth Amendment's protections against double jeopardy are enforceable in state as well as federal court through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as established by Benton v. Maryland 395 U.S. 784. This decision relies on the application of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution.
As a subgenre of res judicata, collateral estoppel prevents subsequent litigation of legal determinations of fact and law that have resulted in valid final judgments. All litigants have a "full and fair" opportunity to bring suit except where one party has brought effectively the same suit as defined by the same substantive legal issue in another venue or at another time against the same defendant.
U.C.C. § 1-103.
Construction of Uniform Commercial Code to Promote its Purposes and Policies: Applicability of Supplemental Principles of Law.

(a) The Uniform Commercial Code must be liberally construed and applied to promote its underlying purposes and policies, which are: (1) to simplify, clarify, and modernize the law governing commercial transactions; (2) to permit the continued expansion of commercial practices through custom, usage, and agreement of the parties; and (3) to make uniform the law among the various jurisdictions.
(b) Unless displaced by the particular provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code, the principles of law and equity, including the law merchant and the law relative to capacity to contract, principal and agent, estoppel, fraud, misrepresentation, duress, coercion, mistake, bankruptcy, and other validating or invalidating cause supplement its provisions.

Doh! I lost the source for the following definition somewhere in my notes. I'll just post it here at the bottom until I find it! :oops:
Agency by estoppel. One created by operation of law and established by proof of such acts of the principal as
reasonably lead to the conclusion of its existence. Sigel- Campion Live Stock Commission Co. v. Ardohain, 71 Colo.
410. 207 P. 82, 83. Arises where principal, by negligence in failing to supervise agent's affairs, allows agent to exercise
powers not granted to him, thus justifying others in believing agent possesses requisite authority. Reifsnyder
v. Dougherty, 301 Pa. 328, 152 A. 98, 100. Though principal have no notice of agent's conduct, Dispatch Printing
Co. v. National Bank of Commerce, 109 Minn. 440, 124 N.W. 236, 50 L.R.A.,N.S., 74.
Post Reply