Embrey v. Jemison’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

48 federal appellate · 6 district · 68 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 155 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is certainly true that a broker might negotiate such a contract without being privy to the illegal intent of the principal parties to it, which renders it void,- and in such a ease, being innocent of any violation of law, and not suing to enforce an unlawful contract, has a meritorious ground for the recovery of compensation for services and advanees.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Waldron v. Johnston · Stewart v. Wright

2. ““The generally accepted doctrine in this country is, as stated by Mr. Benjamin, that a contract for the sale of goods to be delivered at a future day is valid, even though the seller-has not the goods, nor any other means of getting them than to go into the market and buy them; but such a contract is only valid when the parties really intend and agree that the goods are to be delivered by the seller and the price to be paid by the buyer; and, if under guise of such a contract, the real intent be merely to speculate in the rise or fall of prices, and the goods are not to be delivered, but one party ⅛ to pay to the other the difference between the contract price and the market price of the goods at the date fixed for executing the contract, then the whole transaction constitutes nothing more than a wager.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Clews v. Jamieson · McDaniel v. Tullis, Craig & Co.

3. ““The agreement, being illegal, could not be enforced, and no action could be brought for the recovery of the purchase money of the lands, the subject of the illegal agreement. * * * But it is said that the covenant may be good and may be enforced at law, even though the original agreement were illegal and the purchase money not recoverable, if it had not been secured by an instrument under seal. It is certainly true that for a bond or other instrument under seal no consideration is necessary, but it does not therefore follow that every such instrument may be enforced by an action. The authorities cited in the argument show that where the bond or other instrument is connected with the illegal agreement it cannot be enforced, and therefore, if •lilis plea advanced that the covenant was given in pursuance of the illegal agreement, it would, upon these authorities, be no answer to the action. But if it is not so understood, we think it shows a good defense. It is clear that Hie covenant was given for the payment of the purchase money. It springs from, and is a creature of, the illegal agreement; and as the law will not enforce the original illegal contract, so neither will it allow the parties to enforce a security for the purchase money which, by the original bargain, was tainted with illegality.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Mackin v. Shannon