| OCR Text |
Show ESTOPPEL 433 the company's attorneys, and recommended that the company enter into a stipulation. The company relied heavily on his counsel and judgment. The Utah Supreme Court held:924 To us there appears to be an overwhelming preponderance of evidence to the effect that defendant relied greatly on the knowledge and advice of plaintiff, and that by his conduct, active and passive, plaintiff misled defendant to its detriment. We hold, therefore, that plaintiff is now estopped to assert his claim as against defendant which has changed its position in reliance on plaintiff's advice and conduct. Some miscellaneous circumstances wherein estoppel was held to have arisen.-(\) Where opposing parties acquiesced in an equal or equitable distribution of water for several years, the older users were estopped from claiming priority or precluding the later ones from participating in the common water supply.925 (2) A ditch owner who allowed others to settle along and use the ditch to take water to their lands for years, was estopped by his course and conduct from excluding them now.926 (3) The conduct and silence of parties in failing to assert their claims when certain deeds were executed were estopped from doing so later.927 "It is elementary that he who fails to assert his alleged rights, when in good faith he should have done so, is estopped from afterwards asserting the same."928 (4) One who sold land to another for development of water for distribution to consumers outside the State, knowing the latter's purpose, was estopped from questioning the latter's right to take the water outside the State.929 (5) Long continued use of a ditch for conveying water purchased from an irrigation company, under a claim of absolute and permanent right, was held to amount to more than a mere revocable license. Acquiescence by another-not only by silence but by affirmative conduct-was held to estop him from denying the right.930 924 Tanner v.Provo Res. Co., 99 Utah 139, 155-157, 98 Pac. (2d) 695 (1940). In Wellsville East Field In. Co. v. Lindsay Land & Livestock Co., 104 Utah 448, 472-473, 137 Pac. (2d) 634 (1943), the court considered the requirements of estoppel and held that the facts necessary to constitute estoppel did not exist in the case. 92SDalton v. Rentaria, 2 Ariz. 275, 279-280, 15 Pac. 37 (1887); Biggs v. Utah Irrigating Ditch Co., 7 Ariz. 331, 351-352, 64 Pac. 494 (1901). 926LehiIrr. Co. v.Moyle, 4 Utah 327, 342-343, 9 Pac. 867 (1886). 921 Fabian v. Collins, 3 Mont. 215, 229, 231 (1878). 92iOrientMin. Co. v. Freckleton, 27 Utah 125, 130-131, 74 Pac. 652 (1903). 929Newport Water Co. v. Kellogg, 31 Idaho 574, 579-580, 174 Pac. 602 (1918). 930Wedgworth v. Wedgworth, 20 Ariz. 518, 522, 181 Pac. 952 (1919). "Long and continuous knowing acquiescence in another's use and enjoyment of a property or privilege may preclude one from subsequently asserting his claim." Hillcrest Irr. Dist. v. |
