Jones v. . Reilly’s Empirical Analysis
1903
Citation profile
29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently February 2014 · most notably In Re the Probate of the Will of Cunnion (1911), Bloodgood v. Lynch (1944)
29 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedJones v. Reilly
Relationships
Relies on Brigg v. . Hilton · 14 E.H. Smith 330 - Reed v. . McCord · Whiting v. . Edmunds · The People Ex Rel. Ainslee v. . Howlett · Richardson v. . Emmett
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The appellants further complain of the exclusion by the trial court of deeds made by Henderson and his assertion of claim of ownership to the property made at the time of the alleged lease. The ruling of the trial court on these matters was correct. Henderson was in possession of the premises before the malting of the lease. Nevertheless the doctrine that a tenant cannot dispute the title of his landlord applied to him as well as to a tenant who enters into possession under a lease. The doctrine, it is true, is qualified to a certain extent. Thus, if the tenant has been induced to take the lease by force, fraud, misrepresentation, or possibly by mistake, the estoppel does not obtain. 2 Taylor, § 707. In People ex rel. Ainslee v. Howlett, 76 N. Y. 574 , the defendant was allowed to show that the lease was a mere power for a usurious agreement for the loan of money to him by the party claiming to be -landlord. But the tenant cannot merely by his own act destroy the estoppel. So in Whiting v. Edmunds, 94 N. Y. 309 , it was held that a tenant cannot by disclaimer or by mere words denying his landlord’s title and asserting one of his own, work a forfeiture of his tenancy, or set running an adverse possession. In other words, the tenant or his grantees may avoid the estoppel by attack on the means by which the lease was originally procured, but not by his or their own subsequent acts or declarations.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Williams v. Nelson
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.