Sec 234

A false representation, either by the party himself or his agent, may estop him afterwards from asserting the contrary, and bind him contractually to the position the false representation takes.2 It will not be necessary for the party suing on such representations to prove their truth. "This is no infringement on the rule of law requiring the best evidence, and forbidding secondary evidence to be produced till the sources of .primary evidence have been exhausted; for the estoppel professes not to supply the absence of the necessary instruments of evidence, but to supersede the necessity of any evidence by showing that the fact is already admitted; and so, too, has it been held that an admission, which is of the same nature as an estoppel, though not so high in degree, may be allowed to establish facts which, were it not for the admission, must have been proved by certain steps appropriated by law to that purpose."3 Hence, a party making a statement which induces another to contract with him is bound by such statement whether true or false.4 On the other hand, a non-contractual admission, if made under mistake, may be explained or repudiated.5

Sec 235

When a transaction is fraudulent on both sides, neither party, according to the Roman law, can recover from the other damages for the fraud committed on him individually.6 It does not follow from this that the contract is ipso jure invalid, since, when executed, it cannot be rescinded, and it may convey rights to innocent third parties; all that is declared is that the courts cannot be used by a party implicated to enforce for his benefit a contract fraudulently concocted; this view has been settled by repeated adjudications of our courts.7

False representation may be estoppel.

When both parties are involved in fraud, neither can recover.

1 See infra, sec 338, 511, 552, 899.

2 See for mistakes of negligent estoppel, supra, sec 202 a, and generally, infra, sec 1043 et seq.

3 2 Sm. L. C. 693; 3 Wli. on Ev. sec 1075-8.

4 Cave v. Mills, 7 H. & N. 913; Jorden v. Money, 5 H. of L. C. 185; Salem Bank v. Gloucester Bank, 17 Mass. 1; Wh. on Ev. sec 145.

5 See Wh. on Ev. sec 1088, for authorities.

6 L. 36 D. h. t., Koch, sec 76.

7 Infra, sec 340.

Hence a contract between two parties to defraud a third. party, cannot be enforced by either of the contracting parties.1 "No one is allowed to set up his own fraud or criminality, to defeat an innocent party, but when both parties are particips criminis, the fraud may be set up and proved by either party, when the unexecuted portion of the contract is sought to be enforced against him.'"2 "A court of equity will not lend its aid to enforce the performance of a contract which appears to have been entered into by both the contracting parties for the express purpose of doing that which is illegal; and where such a contract has been executed by one of the parties by conveying real estate, a court of equity will not, in general, interfere, but will leave the title to the property where the parties have placed it."3 The rule, however, does not preclude a dupe or victim from obtaining redress for a wrong sustained, though he was nominally party to 'the wrong.4 - A fraudulent conveyance to defeat creditors, while bad as against the creditors may bind the parties.5