on the Ha up a map of Parcel No. 173 in Estate Anna’s Retréat. There is absolutely no evidence that Farrington commissioned the Harrigan map to induce Blake to purchase property, construct buildings, or do anything regarding the property depicted on that map: Cf. Ute Park Summer Homes Ass’n v. Maxwell Land Grant Co., 77 N.M. 730, 427 P.2d 249 (1967) (upholding the right of land purchasers to force the seller to provide a golf course that was displayed on a map presented the buyers prior to their purchase because the seller used the map to induce the purchasers to buy their properties). Accordingly, Farrington’s commissioning of the Harrigan map did not constitute a representation for equitable estoppel purposes. Cf. Lima v. Farley, 7 F.2d 40, 41, 4 Ohio Law Abs. 374 (6th Cir. 1923) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the Harrigan map does not purport
holding that city electors who rendered property to city assessor after time fixed by statute were qualified to vote at city election on issuance of bonds for construction of an electric light and power system holding that a jurys finding that a city had delegated its final policymaking authority in the area of law enforcement to a city police chief was supported by the evidence and warranted imposing liability upon the city holding a city liable for personal injuries caused by a driver colliding with a girder in the center of a city street where the city did not give a warning holding that city attorneys promise in an oral settlement agreement for city to annex and rezone land was within the legal authority of the city of joliet to accomplish and were not absolutely void acts per se therefore city could be estopped from avoiding enforcement of contract holding that a city was equitably estopped from denying the accuracy of blueprints and specifications given to a party who had been contracted to build a sewer for the city