Hostler

delivered the opinion of the court. Wells, Justice, concurred.

There is no dispute in this case as to the material facts. The question is, whether the court below decided the law correctly upon the facts ?

The appellant’s counsel relies mainly upon the doctrine of estoppel, which, it is insisted, applies to this case, because in the deed of charter-party executed by the plaintiff, he admits that the vessel is the property of Powett, and this admission came directly to the knowledge of Haines as master of the vessel, and induced him to give credit to Powett.

The sense of estoppel is, that a man for the sake of good faith *307 and fair dealing, ought to be estopped from saying that to he false, which, by his means, has become accredited for truth, and by his representations has led others to act. 4 Kent. Although it is generally true that estoppels bind only parties and privies, yet even parol admissions may be conclusive, where they have had the effect of inducing another to alter his condition.

In this case, Haines is appointed master of the vessel by Powett, who is in possession. After that, the plaintiff enters into the charter-party, and by it acknowledges Powett to be…