Cadman v. Peter’s Empirical Analysis
118 U.S. 73 · 1886
Citation profile
1 district · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 1912
1 district · 16 state decisions
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 Peugh v. Davis · Russell v. Southard · Howland v. Blake · Villa v. Rodriguez · Coyle v. Davis
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““To show by parol that a deed absolute in form is a mortgage the evidence must be clear and convincing.” — McCor mick v. Herndon, 67 Wis. 648 ( 31 N. W. 303 ). “The rule in cases of this kind,” said the court in Cadman v. Peter, 118 U. S. 73 (6 Sup. Ct. 957) “is well settled. If the conveyance is in fee, with a covenant of warranty, and there is no defeasance, either in the conveyance or a collateral paper, parol evidence to show that it was intended to secure a debt, and to operate only as a mortgage, must be clear, unequivocal, and convincing, or the presumption that the instrument is what it purports to be must prevail.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Barnes v. Packwood
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.