OCR Text |
Show ESTOPPEL 431 Estoppel was held not to have been created in a case where the holder of the water right resisted adverse use on the part of others and finally turned to the courts for relief.911 Turpitude.-The party against whom an estoppel is declared must have been guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment of essential facts.912 There must have been an express intention on his part to deceive, or such culpable negligence as to amount to constructive fraud.913 Before a court of equity will estop the holder of a water right from asserting the right-the result being to deprive him of the right and to transfer its enjoyment to someone else-there must have been some degree of turpitude on his part.914 "Constructive fraud underlies every equitable estoppel * * * ."915 In a New Mexico case, it was observed: "Appellant urges that, in order to create estoppel, there must be a degree of moral turpitude involved. This is another way of saying that there can be no estoppel without fraud. But, conceding this to be the law, still it is fraud to deny that which has been previously affirmed."916 In 1901, the Utah Supreme Court declared:917 "It has frequently been held that an estoppel will not arise simply from a breach of promise as to future conduct, or from a mere disappointment of expectations. The only case in which a representation as to the future can be held to operate as an estoppel is where it relates to an intended abandonment of an existing [water] right." Effect of silence.- Mere silence on the part of the holder of the right, "disconnected from other circumstances in evidence," does not create an estoppel.918 "A mere passive acquiescence where one is under no duty to speak does not raise an estoppel."919 911 Anderson v.Bassman, 140 Fed. 14, 25 (C.C.N.D. Cal. 1905). 913Anaheim Union Water Co. v. Semi-Tropic Water Co., 64 Cal. 185, 194-195, 30 Pac. 623 (1883); Sherlock v. Greaves, 106 Mont. 206, 217, 76 Pac. (2d) 87 (1938); Bennett v. Salem, 192 Oreg. 531, 541, 235 Pac. (2d) 772 (1951). 913Btddle Boggs v. Merced Min. Co., 14 Cal. 279, 367-368 (1859); Farmers Res. & In. Co. v. Fulton Irrigating Ditch Co., 108 Colo. 482, 500, 120 Pac. (2d) 196 (1941). 9iASan Diego v. Cuyamaca Water Co., 209 Cal. 105, 142, 287 Pac. 475 (1930); Farmers Res. &Irr. Co. v. Fulton Irrigating Ditch Co., 108 Colo. 482, 500, 120 Pac. (2d) 196 (1941); Kramer v. Deer Lodge Farms Co., 116 Mont. 152, 174-175, 151 Pac. (2d) 483 (1944). 915Moore v. Sherman, 52 Mont. 542, 547, 159 Pac. 966 (1916). 9X6La Luz Community Ditch Co. v. Alamogordo, 34 N. Mex. 127, 141, 145, 279 Pac. 72 (1929). 9"Elliot v. Whitmore, 23 Utah 342, 354, 65 Pac. 70 (1901). 91*Lux v. Haggin, 69 Cal. 255, 278-279, 4 Pac. 919 (1884), 10 Pac. 674 (1886);Moore v. Sherman, 52 Mont. 542, 548, 159 Pac. 966 (1916); Scott v. Jardine Gold Min. & Mill Co., 79 Mont 485, 495-496, 257 Pac. 406 (1927); Bolter v. Garrett, 44 Oreg. 304, 306-307, 75 Pac. 142 (1904). 919Verdugo Canyon Water Co. v. Verdugo, 152 Cal. 655, 674, 93 Pac. 1021 (1908); accord, Nahaolelua v. Kaaahu, 10 Haw. 18, 21 (1895); Sherlock v. Greaves, 106 Mont. 206, 216-217, 76 Pac. (2d) 87 (1938); Brown v. Gold Coin Min. Co., 48 Oreg. 277, |