Hoffmann v. Ackermann’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 41 state decisions

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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The rule is that parol evidence is inadmis-» sible to affect title to real estate (Civ. Code, Arts. 2440, 2275), and the effect of admitting it in this case would be. to transfer the title to the square of ground in question from Miss Peters to Miss Ackermann. “The rule is not without its exceptions, and among- them are the familiar examples where a creditor seeks by the revocatory action or the action en declaration de simulation to bring back into the estate of the debtor property which the debtor has fraudulently transferred; but this court, has steadily refused to recognize as an exception to the rule the case where the purpose is to bring into the estate of the debtor real estafe that has never formed any part of it. [Italics ours.] “Thus, in the case of Nouvet v. Vitry, 15 La. Ann. 653 , where the debtor had lived for many years in concubinage with a colored woman, and had purchased real estate in her name — in the same manner that Miss Ackermann is alleged to have done in the name of Miss Peters — and, after ineffectual efforts to rescue the property, had surrendered it to his creditors, in fraud of whom he had used his concubine’s name for his purchases, and the syndic, acting for the creditors, brought suit to have the property declared, to belong to the debtor, just as in this case it is sought to have the property in question declared to belong to Miss Ackermann, the debtor, the court refused to permit the use of parol evidence. The syllabus of the case, which cor”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Eberle v. Eberle

2. ““There is a great and material difference between thé right to introduce parol testimony to show fraud or simulation in the sale of immovable property or slaves by the ancestor, to the prejudice of the legitime of the forced heirs, and the right to introduce parol testimony to show title in the ancestor to such property, for the purpose of increasing the amount of assets belonging to his estate. The former right may, in a certain class of eases, be exercised; but the latter right never can be without the consent of the defendant, or party claiming adversely to the heirs. It is the latter right which the plaintiff seeks to exercise in this case, contrary to the letter and spirit of the law, as well as the will of the defendant.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Eberle v. Eberle

3. ““On further consideration, and after re-argument, the Court is satisfied thatit erred in holding that parol evidence is admissible in this case. The rule is that parol evidence is inadmissible to affect title to real estate (Civil Code, Articles 2440, 2275), and the effect of admitting it in this case would be to transfer the title to the square of ground in question from Miss Peters to M'iss Ackerman.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ruddock Orleans Cypress Co. v. deLuppe