Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 116 F.1d 276 - McDonald v. Daskam

McDonald v. Daskam’s Empirical Analysis

116 F. 276 · 1902

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
April 1952
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 1952

5 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions

80190219101920193019401950decided

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 Seth Spring v. South Carolina Insurance Company · Nordyke & Marmon Co. v. Gery · Skobis v. Ferge · In re Wittenberg Veneer & Panel Co. · Baillie v. Stephenson

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

  1. ““The evidence of the parol agreement makes clear what otherwise might be doubtful — the intention of the parties. Such parol evidence is admissible to explain the meaning of indefinite terms. The advances had been wholly obtained uhder, and upon the faith of, the parol agreement. The note was given upon the closing up of the matter, and, read in the light of the parol agreement, clearly discloses the intention of the parties. It declares that the insurance, if fire should occur, should stand as security for the payment. We cannot consider this agreement as a common-law pledge, and void because the policies were not given into the possession of Daskam or the bank. It was not a pledge of marketable security or a salable property. Whether we consider the verbal arrangement or the written note, it was an agreement for a beneficial interest in a chose in action — á personal contract between the insurer and the insured. Under the modern rule, such an equitable interest may be created by parol as well as by deed. The transaction, in equity, amounts to an appropriation of any claim under the policies for any loss by fire which may occur.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.