J. E. McKivett v. McKivett’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

33 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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““* * * The evidence offered in this case is of such character as to render the deed ineffective. It would prove that the beneficial title did not rest in the wife for her separate use, as the deed declared, but that it remained in the community. Such evidence would contradict the very statements in the deeds which the court held in Kahn v. Kahn to belong to that class of particular and contractual recitals which the parties may not deny. The deeds in express terms declare the particular purpose or use for which the property is conveyed; that is, that it shall belong separately to the wife. Parol evidence should not be admitted to prove that it ivas conveyed for a different purpose or use.” (Emphasis supplied).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Messer v. Johnson · Jackson v. Hernandez

2. ““The principle upon which the decision of Kahn v. Kahn rests is the same as that which controls the cases holding that parol evidence may not be admitted, in the absence of fraud or mistake in the reduction of the contract to writing, to prove another or different consideration when the consideration expressed in the written instrument is contractual or executory. The reason for the exclusion of such evidence is that, when the parties have put in writing stipulations about the matter in controveresy, they should not be permitted to show an inconsistent agreement. See Coverdill v. Seymour, 94 Texas 1 , 57 S. W. 37 ; Winkler v. Creekmore (Tex. Com. App.) 256 S. W. 257 ; Johnson v. Johnson (Tex. Com. App.) 14 S W. (2d) 805 ; Pridgen v. Furnish (Tex. Com. App.) 23 S. W. (2d) 307 ; Guggenheim v. Dallas Plumbing Co. (Tex. Com. App.) 59 S. W. (2d) 105 . * * * Such evidence would contradict the very statements in the deeds which the court held in Kahn v. Kahn to belong to that class of particular and contractual recitals which the parties may not deny. The deeds in express terms declare the particular purpose or use for which the property is conveyed; that is, that it shall belong separately to the wife. Parol evidence should not be admitted to prove that it was conveyed for a different purpose or use.” * * *”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Lindsay v. Clayman