| OCR Text |
Show ESTOPPEL 427 A North Dakota statute provides, among other things, that a "prescriptive water permit" acquired under the statute may be lost by forfeiture.895 For further discussion of the loss of prescriptive rights by adverse use, see the earlier discussion under "Character of Water Rights Affected-Rights Subject to Loss by Prescription-Prescriptive right." ESTOPPEL An Equitable Principle The loss of a water right by estoppel results from the fact that the holder is barred, because of circumstances for which he is held responsible, from asserting his title before a court of equity. This principle "involves an equitable concept whose animating principle is natural or abstract right and justice-a principle which justly discountenances or frowns upon transactions the consummation of which would work a gross injustice upon the rights of a person."896 As stated by the California Supreme Court:897 The defense of estoppel rests upon the doctrine that a right conceded for the purpose of such defense to exist in a party, he shall not be permitted to assert against another to the latter's injury because of the existence and proof of certain facts and conditions which would render its assertion inequitable. The question as to the application of this well-defined legal proposition as between the parties to an action in the nature of things depends upon the facts of each particular case. The various elements of equitable estoppel are discussed immediately below. Some other facets of estoppel, including estoppel by deed and estoppel by judgment, are discussed later.898 Elements of Equitable Estoppel Under the following subtopics, the elements of estoppel are considered separately, chiefly with respect to only one or the other of the parties. But throughout the discussion it is implicit that no estoppel can be created unless the one party either does something, of fails to do something that he should do, and the other party in his turn responds thereto. Both cause and effect must be definite. 89SN. Dak. Cent. Code Ann § 61-04-22 (Supp. 1969), described at note 646 supra. t96Stepp v. Williams, 52 Cal. App. 237, 254-255, 198 Pac. 661 (1921). 897San Diego v. Cuyamaca Water Co., 209 Cal. 105, 137, 287 Pac. 475 (1930). 898 Regarding estoppel by deed, see "Some Other Facets-Grant of Riparian Right," infra. |
