Stone v. Bancroft’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 24 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In consideration of the valuable services done by the said Stone in conducting the publication and sale of the historical works of the said' Bancroft, the business formerly being conducted as the Bancroft Works Department of A. L. Bancroft & Co., but now being done and shortly to be incorporated under the laws of California as the History Company.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bancroft v. Hambly · Hambly v. Bancroft

2. ““We think the only fair interpretation lo l)e given this contract is Heat Bancroft was to pay Stone throe Iranelreei anei fifty dollars peer month for his services. There is but a single theory that, can be aelvance,d looking to a contrary construction, and that is to-the effect, that this contract between Bancroft anel Stone' constituted them partners (Stone; possessing a <me;-tenth interest in the partnership), and that consequently Hie salary of said Stone was to be paid by the partnership. Upon a me're cursory examination of the contraed,, it is plainly evident that it doe's not, and was newer intended to, create a partnership betwcem these two parties. This is patent from the fact that it was contemplated in the; writing itse'lf that in the near future the History Company was to be incorporated. It is doubly apparent when we consider that the one,-tenth interest in the property given by Bancroft to Stone failed to vest any absolute title in him. but was dependent upon conetiiions, anel liable to be forfeited and revert to Bancroft a,t any moment. That Sterne had no such interest in this business as to constitute him a partner is further made plain when we look at the provision of the contract wherein it is expressly stipulated that, if Stone; should die within five years from its date, them only one-half of the one-tenth interest shemld pass to his heirs. To hold these parties partners under the agreement would make Stone’s salary dependent upon Ills; profits of the b”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hambly v. Bancroft

3. ““We think the only -fair interpretation to. he given to this contract is that Bancroft was to pay Stone three hundred and fifty dollars per month for his services. There is hut a single theory that can he advanced looking to a contrary construction, and that is to the effect that this contract beween Bancroft .and Stone constituted them partners (Stone possessing a one-tenth interest in the partnership), and that, consequently, the salary of said Stone was to he paid hy the partnership. Upon a mere cursory examination of the contract, it is plainly evident that it does not, and was never intended to, create a partnership between these two parties. This is patent from the fact that it was contemplated in the writing itself that in the near future the History Company was to be incorporated. It is doubly apparent when we consider that the one-tenth interest in the property given by Bancroft to Stone failed to vest any absolute title in him, hut was dependent upon conditions, and liable to he forfeited, and icvi-rt to Bancroft, at any moment. That Stone had no such ini (‘rest: in this business as to consütutí' him a partner is further made plain when we look at the provision of the contract wherein it is expressly stipulated that, if Stone should die within live years from its date, then only one-half of the one-tenth interest should pass to his heirs. To hold these parties partners under the agreement would make Stone’s salary dependent upon the proiits of the business. There is”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bancroft v. Hambly