Saylor v. Brooks’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 7 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Again, in almost every other contract, these underlying facts are recognized, and modify the letter to accomplish the intent. Thus, in the hiring of chattels, though the terms be as absolute and positive as those of a real estate lease, their absolute destruction without the fault of the hirer terminates the contract. It is assumed that the contract only lasts and the obligation to pay for the use continues only while the property remains in being, and not until the end of the term named in the contract. Anything which involves the substantial destruction of the chattel puts an end to the obligations of either party in reference to it. * * * So, if the hiring is of a room or rooms in a building, destruction of the building by fire puts an end to the lease. (Citing cases.)””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Fuchs Murane v. Goe

2. ““We do not think the fact that a lease covering a part of a building contains the statement that the landlord agrees to keep it in repair has any fair tendency to indicate that the parties actually contemplated an obligation on his part to rebuild in case the whole house should be destroyed, and we see no sufficient grounds to interpret the language as imposing that duty upon him. The situation impresses us as one for the application of the principle under which the performance of a contract is excused, where, through no fault of the parties, its subject-matter, without which it cannot be executed, has ceased to exist.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Fuchs Murane v. Goe

3. ““The theory upon which an agreement to repair, or to keep in repair,, is held to include an obligation to replace in the event the property leased is destroyed, is like that under which the lessee’s agreement' to pay rent is held to bind him for such payment, even after the destruction of a building, the reasoning being that, if an exception on that account had been intended, the lease would have said so.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Fuchs Murane v. Goe