Moore v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis
1855
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently September 1926
1 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Lessee of Heister v. Fortner · Carter v. Champion · Beers v. Hawley
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Does the statute of Oregon change this rule? Section 1 of the act relating to conveyances (Laws Or. 1854^55, p. 519) declares that ‘conveyances of land or of any estate or interest therein may be made by deed .signed and sealed.’ and although in the same section and sentence it is. further provided that such deeds may be ‘acknowledged or proved and recorded’ as therein directed, yet it is not declared, and evidently was not intended to make either such acknowledgment, proof or record any part of the execution of such instrument. * « * But section 10 of the act aforesaid does declare that ‘deeds executed within this state of lands or any interest in lands therein, shall be executed in the presence of two witnesses who shall subscribe their names to the same as such,’ and, while this provision may not make such attestation an essential part of the execution of the deed, yet it is probable that, where tire execution is controverted, it cannot be shown if not so attested. It is not a part of the execution, but the means by which it must be proven if necessary.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Eadie v. Chambers““When said mortgages were signed, sealed, and delivered by Thomas to Moore, they were certainly good at common law, and there is no reason to suppose that the design of the registry act was to prevent the operation of a deed so made or to protect the parties thereto as against each other; but the manifest and exclusive object of such act was to protect third persons from fraud or injury by means of prior secret conveyances.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Eadie v. Chambers
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.