Fletcher v. Fuller’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

29 federal appellate · 81 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 140 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Taking into consideration the instructions now here given, you will determine whether or not you will presume that there was a conveyance made by Henrietta Hoffman to Godfrey Young of the west one-half of Twenty-Second street adjoining lot 8 in the southwest block of outlot 43, city and council of Galveston, Tex. The law is that where a party has been for many years in possession of property and asserting an exclusive right of ownership therein, anu where it appears that the subsequent claimants, such as Henrietta Hoffman and her heirs in this case, have for many years asserted no claim to the property but have conducted themselves in such way as to show a nonclaim on their part, then if from all the facts and circumstances in evidence it is more reasonable to presume than otherwise a settlement has been made between the parties, and that such subsequent claimants in some way have parted with her or their title and claim, then under such circumstances you ar'e entitled to presume that there was such settlement and adjustment or a conveyance made by said Henrietta .Hoffman to said Godfrey Young; and it is not necessary that you have any positive evidence that any such was in fact executed. It is sufficient if. the facts lead you to the conclusion that the conveyance might have been executed, and that its existence would be a solution of the difficulties arising from its nonproduction. Taking the foregoing into consideration, you will answer the following question; Do you pres”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hoffman v. Payton · 21 Tex. Civ. App. 503 - Grayson v. Lofland

2. ““In such cases, ‘presumptions,’ as said, by Sir William Grant, ‘do not always proceed on a belief that the thing presumed has actually taken place. Grants are frequently presumed, as Lord Mansfield says (Eldridge v. Knott, Cowp. 215), merely for the purpose, and from a principle of quieting the possession. There is as much occasion for presuming conveyances of legal estates; as otherwise titles must forever remain imperfect, and in many respects unavailable; when from length of time it has become impossible to discover in whom the legal estate (if outstanding) is actually vested.’ Hillary v. Waller, 12 Ves. 239, 252. “The owners of property, especially if it be valuable and available, do not often allow it to remain in the quiet and unquestioned possession of others. Such, a course is not in accordance with the ordinary conduct of men. When, therefore, possession and use are long continued, they create a presumption of lawful origin; that is, that they are founded upon such instruments and proceedings as in law would pass the right to the possession and . use of . the property. It may be, in point of fact, that permission to occupy and use was given orally, or upon a contract of sale, with promise of a future conveyance, which parties have subsequently neglected to obtain, or the conveyance executed may not have been acknowledged, so as to be recorded, or may have been mislaid or lost. Many circumstances may prevent the execution of a deed of conveyance, to which the occupant”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Penny v. Central Coal & Coke Co. · Oregon & C. R. v. Grubissich

3. “[T]he doctrine, as we have seen from the authorities cited, is that the presumption of a grant is indulged merely to quiet a long possession which might otherwise be disturbed by reason of the inability of the possessor to produce the mu-niments of title which were actually given at the time of the acquisition of the property by him or those under whom he claims, but have been lost, or which he or they were entitled to have at that time, but had neglected to obtain, and of which the witnesses have passed away, or their recollection of the transaction has become dimmed and imperfect; and hence, as a general rule, it is only where the possession has been actual, open and exclusive for the period prescribed by the statute of limitations to bar an action for the recovery of land, that the presumption of a deed can be invoked.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Fullard-Leo · Carter v. Goodson