Heryford v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis
102 U.S. 235 · 1880
Citation profile
58 federal appellate · 6 district · 88 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 212 later decisions (14 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2015 · most notably McGourkey v. Toledo & Ohio Central Railway Co. (1892), Harkness v. Russell (1886)
58 federal appellate · 6 district · 88 state decisions — followed in 27 states
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 Hervey v. Rhode Island Locomotive Works · Hunt v. Bay State Iron Co. · Parmlee v. Catherwood · Bigelow v. Huntley
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 212 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is the legal effect of the whole which is to be sought for. The form of the instrument is of little account. Though the contract industriously and repeatedly spoke of loaning the cars to the railroad company for hire for four months, and delivering them for use for hire, it is manifest that no mere bailment for hire was intended. * * * It appears equally olear to us that the contract was not one for a conditional sale.””
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“' “It is quite unmeaning for parties to a contract to say it shall not amount to a sale, when it contains every element of a sale and transmission of ownership.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In view of these provisions, we can come to no other conclusion than that it was the intention of the parties, manifested by the agreement, the ownership of the cars should pass at once to the railroad company, in consideration of their becoming debtors for the price. Notwithstanding the efforts to cover up the real nature of the-contract, its substance was an hypothecation of the cars to secure a debt due to the vendors for the price of a sale. The railroad company was not accorded an option to buy or not. They were bound to pay the price, either by paying their notes, or surrendering the property to be sold in order to make payment. This was in no sense a conditional sale. This giving the property as a security for the payment of a debt is the very essence of a mortgage, which has no existence in a case of conditional sale.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.