(after stating the facts.) The only question presented by this appeal is whether the Miller-Jones Furniture Company, surety on the bond of Wickshire for the performance of his contract to erect a building for the Fort Smith Ice & Cold Storage Company, was discharged by the subsequent alteration of the contract. The Cold Storage Company contends that the supplemental contract did not discharge the surety, for the reason that such supplemental contract was within the scope of the first contract, and was therefore assented to by the Furniture Company at the time it signed the bond. This contention of the Cold Storage Company is based on a provision in the original contract permitting the owner to make alterations in the plans and specifications of the building. But we are of the opinion that the parties did not intend by this provision to authorize changes so extensive as the one complained of here. The provision referred to, which is set out in the statement of facts, permits such alterations to be made, even without the consent of the contractor, and provides that the architect shall determine the amount to be paid or deducted therefor. We cannot suppose that the parties intended by this provision to permit the owner to make great and extensive changes in the plan of the building, and to force the contractor to complete it in conformity therewith, at such compensation as might be allowed by the architect. The fact that these alterations in the plan could be made without the consent of the contractor forces as to the conclusion that the alterations referred to were such minor changes as owners, often wish to make in the plan of buildings while they are under construction, and which do not greatly affect the undertakings of the contractor. Dorsey v. McGee, (Neb.) 46 N. W. 1018; Consaul v. Sheldon, (Neb.) 52 N. W. 1104.
But tbe supplemental contract in this case called for very extensive changes. It called for a larger building at an increased price. The surety undertook that the contractor should, on or before the 14th day of October, 1895, construct and finish a one-story building in which there were to be cold storage rooms-. The owner afterwards, without the consent of the surety, released the contractor from his obligation to complete the building within the time required, and agreed with him that, instead of the one-story building for the completion of which the surety was bound, he should, for an additional consideration of $1,175, erecta two-story building, in the first story of .which cold storage rooms were to be constructed and finished on the 14th day of October, 1895. It was specially agreed that the change in the contract by adding another story to the building should not affect the completion of the cold storage rooms, and the Cold Storage Company now asks, damages because these cold storage rooms were not completed within the time named. But, after the contract was changed so as to call for a two-story building, the obligation to complete the storage rooms within the time named rested on the second contract, to which the surety was not a party. The first contract being abrogated by the second, the surety could not be held liable for the performance or non-performance of any part of the second contract. O’Neal v. Kelley, 65 Ark. 550.
We are also of the opinion that the fact that the Furniture-Company knew of the alterations in the contract, that it subsequently furnished material to Wickshire to complete the building as altered, and that the largest portion of its account against Wickshire is for material furnished after such alteration, does not estop it from setting up such alteration as a defense againts the counterlaim of the Cold Storage Company.
“Equitable estoppel,” says Prof. Pomeroy, “is the effect of the voluntary conduct of a party, whereby he is absolutely precluded, both at law and in equity, from asserting rights which might perhaps have otherwise existed, either of property, of contract, or of remedy, as against another person, who has in good faith relied upon such conduct, and has been led thereby to change his position for the worse, and who on his part acquired some corresponding right, either of property, of contract, or of remedy.” 2 Pom. Equity Jur. (2 Ed.) §804. Now, in this case, the Furniture Company did nothing that in anyway misled the Cold Storage Company, or that caused it to change its position in any respect, and the doctrine of estoppel does not apply. As the Furniture Company did not consent to such alteration of the contract, nor do anything to estop it from setting up the same as a defense, we are of the opinion that its contention on that point must be sustained, and we must hold that it was thereby discharged from liability as surety on tbe bond of Wickshire. We are therefore of opinion that tbe judgment of tbe court as to damages on the counterclaim was erroneous. In other respects it was right; but for the error mentioned the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded, with an order to enter judgment in accordance with this opinion.