Camden v. Mayhew’s Empirical Analysis
129 U.S. 73 · 1889
Citation profile
47 federal appellate · 15 district · 43 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 127 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2012 · most notably Electric Boat Co. v. East Hampton Shipping Co. (1931), Mariners Savings Bank v. Duca (1922)
47 federal appellate · 15 district · 43 state decisions — followed in 18 states
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 Charles Williamson and Catharine His Wife v. Joseph Berry · Blossom v. The Milwaukee Railroad Company · Blossom v. Railroad Co. · Williamson v. Dale
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 127 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““When a decree of a court of equity for the sale of a tract of land requires the sale to he made upon the ¡.erais ‘cash in hand upon day of sale,’ and the person bidding for it at the sale is the highest bidder, and as such is duly declared to be the purchaser, no confirmation of the sale by the court is necessary to fix liability upon him for the deficiency arising upon a resale' in case he refuses without cause to fulfill his contract, and, if the purchaser refuses to pay the amount bid, The court, without confirming the sale, may order the tract to be resold, and the purchaser shall pay the expenses arising from the noneompletion of the purchase, the application, and the resale, and also any deficiency in the price in the resale.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““Where a purchaser refuses, without cause, to make his bid good, he may be compelled to do so by rule or attachment issuing out of the court under whose decree the sale is had. * * * If, as is clear, the purehas er can be required, by rule or attachment, to pay into court the entire sum bid by him and thus complete his purchase, it is difficult to see why a bidder, sought to be made liable for a deficiency resulting from a resale caused by his refusal to make his bid good may not be proceeded against in the same suit by rule, or in any other mode devised by the court that will enable him to meet the issue as to his liability.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““If no order of this kind could (be made in this case, it would follow that not only the purchaser, but the committee of the lunatic, would be permitted to baffle the court, and sport with its decree. * * * I have no doubt the court may, in its discretion, do it in every case where the previous conditions of the sale have not given the purchaser an alternative.””
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.