Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 121 MOAPP 451 - Hingston v. Montgomery

Hingston v. Montgomery’s Empirical Analysis

1906

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
December 1953
most recently cited

1 district · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently December 1953

1 district · 7 state decisions

30190619101920193019401950decided

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 Loomis v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co. · Slattery v. St. Louis & New Orleans Transportation Co. · Hannerty v. Standard Theater Co. · 93 Mo. App. 373 - Barkhoefer v. Barkhoefer · Lane v. Logan Grain Co.

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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““The.test to be applied in determining whether sales of commodities for future delivery are legitimate business transactions, or are fictitiously made for the purposes of gambling, is to ascertain the real intention of the parties with respect to the actual delivery of the commodity. A person has the right to sell for future delivery a thing he does not .own, provided he and his vendee intend at the time that an actual delivery is to be made; and parties to such contracts have the undoubted right afterwards to release each other from performance, either with or without the payment of a consideration by one of them. Such incidents are not uncommon in legitimate business. But the mere making of a written contract under which a delivery or its legal equivalent may be compelled is by no means conclusive of a mutual intention to deliver. The real intention is to be gleaned from all the facts and circumstances, and when it appears that the written agreement is a subterfuge intended to conceal the actual agreement it will be disregarded. Lane v. Logan Grain Co., 105 Mo. App. 215 [ 79 S. W. 722 ].””
    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.