Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 129 ILL 466 - Boone v. Robert

Boone v. Robert’s Empirical Analysis

1889

Citation profile

40
cited by 40 later decisions
10
states following
July 2015
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 32 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently July 2015 · most notably Forest Preserve District v. Lehmann Estate, Inc. (1944), Continental Supply Co. v. Marshall (1945)

2 federal appellate · 32 state decisions — followed in 10 states

6018891890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 President, Directors & Co. of Mechanics' Bank v. New-York & New Haven Railroad · Gorham v. Farson · Iglehart v. Wesson · Morrill v. Colehour · Soles v. Sheppard

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

  1. ““[T]hat [Judd] intended to divest himself of all the right and title so acquired, is manifest from the language employed in his deed to the railroad company. True, he specifically describes a strip only one hundred feet wide; but in the same instrument he declares his intention ‘to convey all the interest vested in’ him by the conveyance the Ewings had previously made to him. The description of the premises in the deed, and the declared intention of the grantor, manifested by specific reference to another instrument conveying by a more extended description the same and still other strips of land, are, to the extent of the additional strips, not coincident, and the question is, which of these two descriptions must control. The rule undoubtedly is, ‘that where there is a doubt as to the construction of a deed, it shall be taken most favorably for the grantee.’ Hence it is said: ‘If there are two descriptions in a deed of the land conveyed, and they do not coincide, the grantee is at liberty to elect that which is most favorable to him.’ [Citations.] The claim of the railroad company, here, is not, by a description in a reference deed, to exclude a part of the premises particularly described, but that by such reference additional land was conveyed, — and such seems to be its effect. [Citation.] So, too, where the particular description was defective, effect was given to the general description. [Citation.] And where there was repugnance between the particular and the general des”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““And-if the mortgagee, having notice of successive alienations of parts of the mortgaged premises, releases a part then liable for the payment of the debt, he can not charge the other portions of the premises without first deducting the value of the parts released. (2 Jones on Mortgages, sec. 1631.) ””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “where there are two creditors standing in equal equity, one of whom has security upon two funds, and the other upon only one of the two, the former is required to proceed primarily against the fund upon which the latter has no claim.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.