Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 133 Wash. 15 - Lyon v. Herboth

Lyon v. Herboth’s Empirical Analysis

1925

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
1
states following
July 2003
most recently cited

11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently July 2003

11 state decisions

50192519301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Lockwood v. Exchange Bank · Smith v. Allen · Greeno v. Barnard · McBride v. Gibbs · Ihrke v. Continental Life Insurance & Investment Co.

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

  1. ““At the common law the mere fact of the sale seems to have given the vendor an equitable lien on thé próperty for the purchase price. No recordation of it was necessary. It was a secret lien, and we held in the Smith case that such a lien was inconsistent with our recording acts. But the lien here sought to be enforced is not the secret equitable lien which was condemned. It is one by virtue of a judgment which respondents obtained for the purchase price. The vendor’s lien mentioned in the homestead statute is not the kind of lien which we have held does not exist, but is the very kind that is here sought to be enforced. That statute cannot have any other meaning than that a homestead is subject to judgments based upon the purchase price. It seems to us plain that the legislature intended that it should be the public policy of this state that no one should be permitted to hold a homestead as against the person from whom he had purchased and to whom he had not paid the purchase money. Until the appellants obtained their judgment they did not have any kind of lien, but when it was obtained it became an enforcible lien on the respondent’s homestead. There is no reason why a judgment representing the purchase money may not be as valid a lien against a homestead as a mortgage given by the purchaser representing the purchase money.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““The substance of our conclusion was that the mere fact that one has sold and conveyed land to another and the purchase price has not been paid does not create any kind of lien on the land for the purchase price.” (Italics ours.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.