Hammond v. Caton’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 16 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is significant that the items expressly named and held for future ‘adjustment’ included only assets and liabilities requiring an audit for accurate determination of the amount or value thereof. The cash on hand and prepaid items were not uncertain items, and at the time of the execution of the contract and bill of sale, the total amount thereof was readily available without the necessity of an audit. The phrase ‘accounts owing and due’ used in the contract, and the words ‘accounts receivable’ as used in the bill of sale, were construed by the trial court to include only customers or trade accounts. The accountant, upon whose figures the parties agreed to make final settlement, so construed the language used. ****** “Assuming, without so deciding, that an uncertainty existed from the language employed in said instruments as to whether the parties intended the result claimed by Hammond, there was evidence, other than the instruments, introduced without objection, tending to establish the intent of the parties as contended by Catón. We said in Chase v. Collins, 75 Colo. 156 , 225 P. 255 , where ambiguity admittedly existed in the language of the contract there under consideration: “ ‘In the construction of contracts it is elementary that the intent of the parties should govern, and any evidence showing such intent is highly important.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Moore v. Freeman