Rand v. Gillette

Stacy, C. 3".

Tbe judgment must be affirmed on authority of what was said in Distributing Co. v. Carraway, 196 N. C., 58 , 144 S. E., 535 . A party is not permitted to take a position in a subsequent judicial proceeding which conflicts with a position taken by bim in a former judicial proceeding, when tbe latter position disadvantages his adversary.

Hardison v. Everett, 192 N. C., 371 , 135 S. E., 288 .

Tbe plaintiff is face to face with- tbe lesson, taught every day in tbe school of experience, tbat be cannot safely “run with tbe hare and bunt with tbe bound.” He induced tbe court to adjudge tbe instruments in suit as valid and subsisting liens in 1929. If this were erroneous, as be now alleges, be has no one to blame but himself.

Tbe plaintiff may have bis remedy at law, but equity having beard bim once will not listen to bim now in reversal of bis former position on tbe same subject. Tbe doctrine of equitable estoppel is based on an application of tbe golden rule to tbe every-day affairs of men. It requires tbat one should do unto others as in equity and good conscience be would have them do unto bim, if their positions were reversed.

Boddie v. Bond, 154 N. C., 359 , 70 S. E., 824 . Its compulsion is one of fair play.

Sugg v. Credit Corp., 196 N. C., 97 , 144 S. E., 554 .

Affirmed.