Keller v. Ashford’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

90 federal appellate · 21 district · 109 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 322 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““If one person agrees with another to be primarily liable for a debt due from that other to a third person, so that as between the parties to the agreement the first is the principal and the second the'surety, the creditor of such surety is entitled in equity to be substituted in his place for the purpose of compelling such principal to pay the debt.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Willard v. Wood · Mercantile Trust Co. v. Baltimore & O. R.

2. ““In the case at bar, the promise of Ash-ford was to Thompson, and not to the mortgagees; and there was no privity of contract between them and Ashford. The consideration of the promise moved from Thompson alone. The only object of the promise was to benefit him, and not to benefit the mortgagees or other incumbrancers; and they did not know of, or assent to, the promise at the time it was made, nor afterwards do or omit any act on the faith of it. It is clear, therefore, that Thompson only could maintain an action at law upon that promise. “In equity, as at law, the contract of the purchaser to pay the mortgage being made with the mortgagor, and for his benefit only, creates no direct obligation of the purchaser to the mortgagee.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Tamiami Inv. Co. v. Berk

3. ““The case, therefore, stands just as if Ashford had himself received a deed by which he in terms agreed to pay a mortgage made by the grantor. In such a case, according to the general, not to say uniform, current of American authority, as shown by the cases collected in the briefs of counsel, the mortgagee is entitled in some form to enforce the agreement against the grantee; and much of the argument at the bar was devoted to the question whether his remedy should be at law or in equity. Upon the question whether the mortgagee could sue at law there is no occasion to examine the conflicting decisions in the courts of the sev eral States, because it is clearly settled in this court that he could not.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Home v. Selling