Matthew v. Moncrief’s Empirical Analysis
135 F.2d 645 · 1943
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently April 1976 · most notably Murray v. Gadsden (1952), Harrington v. Emmerman (1950)
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 31 state decisions — followed in 11 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 In Re the Judicial Settlement of the Accounts of Bolin · Chippendale v. North Adams Savings Bank · 114 Ohio St. 241 - Cleveland Trust Co. v. Scobie · Kennedy v. McMurray · Taylor v. Henry
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * Courts have agreed that the question of the intention of the donor is material, but they have held that when' such intention is expressed in a written instrument which says, in plain terms, that the deposit is the joint property of both, and that it is to go upon the death of either to the survivor, such an expression of intention is conclusive, and preclusve of all parol contradiction, except upon the grounds of fraud or mistake. We believe this to be a proper application of the parol evidence rule. jfc Jji ‡ íj« íjí • ;}? “The complaint shows that a contract was signed by both donor and donee with the Perpetual Building Association; that the words óf the contract expressed a clear and unequivocal intention in the donor to make the donee a joint owner; and that a clause of survivorship was included in the instrument. The complaint does not allege fraud or mistake in the execution of the joint agreement. We cannot, under these circumstances, allow Mrs. Davidson’s clearly written and plainly expressed purpose to be rewritten after her demise, or deprive the appellee of rights in a contract to which she was a party-signatory. Accordingly, we hold that the District Court rightly considered that the appellants’ complaint did not state a cause of action.””
6 later decisions quote this exact passage““Where donor and donee-survivor both signed a deposit card which purported to create a joint account subject to demand of either, and upon death of either to the survivor, under ‘parol evidence rule’ written intention of the parties as expressed in that instrument could not be altered or destroyed by parol evidence, in absence of fraud or mistake in the execution thereof. “Where donor and donee signed deposit card containing words expressing a clear and unequivocal intention on part of donor to make donee a joint owner, and containing a survivorship clause, on donor’s death, the donee was entitled to the account, in absence of fraud or mistake or incapacity on part of donor m the execution thereof.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Flesher v. Flesher““ * * * a contract 'between Emma G. Murray and Vellmar G. Gadsden, which declared the account to be theirs as joint owners, subject to the order of either, and the balance, at death of either, to the survivor.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Murray v. Gadsden
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.