McKenzie v. . Harrison’s Empirical Analysis
1890
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 106 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 120 later decisions — most recently May 1973 · most notably Cammack v. J. B. Slattery & Bro. (1925), Rehill v. Rehill (1953)
4 federal appellate · 106 state decisions — followed in 20 states
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 Gray v. . Barton · Smith v. . Kerr · Coe v. . Hobby · Bunge v. . Koop · Fleurot v. Durand
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 120 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ We shall not question the rule that a contract or covenant under seal cannot be modified by a parol unexecuted contract. * * * Neither shall we question the views of the court below to the effect that the alleged oral agreement in this case to reduce the rent $1,000 per year was void and inoperative in so far as it remained unexecuted. The lessors hati the right to repudiate it at any time and demand the full amount of rent provided for by the lease; but in so far as the oral agreement had become executed, as to the payments which had fallen due and had been paid and accepted in full as per the oral agreement, we think the rule invoked has no application. “ The reason of the rule was founded upon public policy. It was not regarded as safe or prudent to permit the contract of parties which had been carefully reduced to writing and executed under seal to be modified or changed by the testimony of witnesses as to the parol statements or agreements of parties. Hence the rule that testimony of parol agreements shall not be competent as evidence to impeach, vary or modify written agreements or covenants under seal. But the parties may waive this rule and carry out and perform the agreements under seal as changed or modified by the parol agreement, thus executing both agreements, and where this has been done and the parties have settled with a full knowledge of the facts and in the absence of fraud, there is no power to revoke or remedy reserved to either party.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Enthoven v. Enthoven“A debt may be forgiven and a receipt in full may be evidence of such forgiveness.”
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.