Three Hundred and Ninety-Third Section of Practice Act. — The word {< represen tative/ * used in the three hundred and ninety-third section of the Practice Act, as amended in 1863, applies to the executor or administrator of the estate of a deceased person, and also to the person or party who has succeeded to the right of the deceased, whether by purchase, or descent, or operation of law.

A Party to an Action a Witness in his own Behalf.—One of the parties in an action to recover possession of land, cannot make himself a witness in his own behalf, on the trial of the same/ for the purpose of defeating the title of the adverse party to the land ir*'"dispute, if the adverse party is the grantee of a person no longer living, and the facts he offers himself to prove transpired before the death of the grantor of the adverse party.

Equitable Estoppels In Pais.— The party relying upon an equitable estoppel in pais in an action at law, must inform the adverse party of the nature of the cause of action .or defense which he will be obliged to meet, and to do this he must plead it with the same fulness and particularity as is required in cases involving like subjects of inquiry in suits in equity.

Waiver of Defective Pleading of Estoppel In Pais.—Where an equitable estoppel in pais is not properly pleaded, hut on the trial evidence is introduced without objection, in the same manner as if it had been properly pleaded, and a verdict is rendered upon the evidence, without objection, the objection to the pleading will be deemed waived, and the case will be considered as though the estoppel had been properly pleaded.

What will constitute an Estoppel In Pais,—Whenever an act is done or statement made by a party which cannot he contravened or contradicted by him without fraud on his part and injury to others, whoso conduct, without fault on their part, has been influenced by the act done or statement made, the character of estoppel will attach to what would otherwise he mere matter of evidence.

What Pacts Necessary to constitute an Estoppel In Pais.—In order to constitute an equitable estoppel with respect to the title of property, it must appear that the party to he estopped has made admissions or declarations, or done acts with the intention of deceiving the other party with regard to the title, or with such carelessness or ciilpable negligence as to amount to a constructive fraud, and that at the time of making the admissions or declarations, or doing the act, he was apprised of the true state of his own title, and that the other party was not only destitute of all knowledge of the true state of the title, but also of all convenient or ready means of acquiring such knowledge.

What Facts do not constitute an Estoppel In Pais» — B. was the owner of a lot of land; C. had it inclosed, and was residing on it, and claimed to own it; D. bargained with C. to purchase it from him, but before making the purchase called on B. and told -him she wished to buy the lot of 0., and B., in reply, disclaimed having any claim or title thereto. D., relying on this disclaimer, purchased the lot of C., and paid its full value. D., at the time, was not destitute of all knowledge of the true state of the title. B., when he made the disclaimer, was not apprised of the true state of his own title, nor did he intend to deceive or defraud D., nor was he guilty of gross carelessness or culpable negligence; Held, that these facts did not estop B. or his grantee from afterwards setting up title to and recovering possession of the lot from D.

Evidence of Oral Declarations and Admissions.—Parol evidence of declarations and admissions of persons made long anterior to the trial, upon which an estoppel in pais is sought to be founded, should be carefully scrutinized by Courts and juries, as it is a dangerous species of evidence, and liable to abuse.

Instructions to Jurf.— It is not error for the Court to refuse to instruct a jury “ that where two innocent parties must suffer, that party who had been the cause of another’s loss must lose.”

Knowledge of One’s Own Title.—The doctrine “ that a man claiming to own land ” is u bound to know the state of his own title,” is not the law in all casos.

Statute of Limitations — Pueblo Lands of San Francisco.—An action may be brought and maintained to recover possession of land within the Pueblo of San Francisco, by one holding title derived from the pueblo at any time within five years after the issuance of a patent for the pueblo lands by the United States.

Biddle Boggs v. Merced Mining Company, 14 Cal. 367, commented on and explained.