The opinion
PETERS, P. J.
I concur.
I do so with some reluctance. It is my belief that, under the facts alleged, the question of whether or not there was an estoppel should be decided as a question of fact and not one of law upon a demurrer. If the question were an open one, I would vote for a reversal. But the question is not an open one. The cases of Jirschik v. Farmers & Merck. Nat. Bank, 107 Cal.App.2d 405 [ 237 P.2d 49 ]; Murdock v. Swanson, 85 Cal.App.2d 380 [ 193 P.2d 81 ]; De Mattos v. McGovern, 25 Cal.App.2d 429 [ 77 P.2d 522 ]; Ruinello v. Murray, 36 Cal.2d 687 [ 227 P.2d 251 ], and others, all cited in the majority opinion, on facts stronger than those here alleged, held that, as a matter of law, no estoppel existed. As a judge of an intermediate court I feel bound by those decisions. In my opinion, the whole problem needs reconsideration by the Supreme Court.
Appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied June 11, 1953.