¶1 (concurring in part; dissenting in part).
¶2 The result reached in the case against McMahon seems to be correct. I do not agree to the disposition made of the Wycoff Case.. The general rules respecting estoppel are to be applied with proper regard to the unusual situation in the case. Wycoff, in the beginning, was asserting his claim against 1-landlan. 1-landlan told Rodgers he had nothing to do with it. This, in the circumstances, clear implication that the his, but (2) was his son's. included (1) the property was not The examination of the record upon which some stress is laid, on the face but confirmed what ilandlan told Rodgers. ilandian knew his son was at the time known as A. H. Handlan, Jr., quite as well as he knew that his own title had been taken under the name of A. H. Handlan, Jr., before he doffed the suffix and the son took it up. The record, when read in the light of what Handlan told Rodgers, was in condition to make the deception of Wycoff certain. Handlan knew this. In such circumstances the examination of the records, so much relied upon in the majority opinion, does not fully let in the rule quoted therein. These things coupled with T-Iandlan `s direction to his soji to "fight it" and other facts stated, afford a basis for estoppel. What has been said is b~sed upon the as *699 sumption that Rodger’s testimony is true, and the record seems to me to leave no question on that head. I concur in the result in the McMahon Case and dissent from the result in the Wycoff Case.