Sprinkle v. Wellborn.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 24 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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Wellborn, having sold the land to a bona fide purchaser, and thereby deprived his vendor of the land itself, and having received the price, he must, by reason of his fraudulent disposition of property, which he is considered to have held in trust, and of its conversion into money, be held responsible for the amount of the consideration paid to him. The money in his hands stands for the land. Wait Fraud. Conv. (3 Ed.), sec. 178; Holland v. Anderson , 38 Mo., 55 ; Lawrence v. Bank , 35 N.Y. 320 ; Dilworth v. Carts , 139 Ill. 508 ; Hazen v. Bank , 70 Vt. 543 . But the administration of this relief is eminently proper under the reformed procedure, where the rights of parties are settled and determined in one action, the distinction between actions at law and suits in equity having been abolished. 1 Pom. Eq. Jur., sec. 242.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Pritchard v. . Smith

2. “[w]e have said . . . that ... a person has mental capacity sufficient to contract if he knows what he is about [Moffit v. Witherspoon, 32 N.C., 185 ; Paine v. Roberts, 82 N.C., 451 ], and that the measure of capacity is the ability to understand the nature of the act in which he is engaged and its scope and effect, or its nature and consequences, not that he should be able to act wisely or discreetly, nor to drive a good bargain, but that he should be in such possession of his faculties as to enable him to know at least what he is doing and to contract understandingly.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 55 N.C. App. 630 - Ridings v. Ridings

3. “A third kind of fraud is that which may be presumed from the circumstances and conditions of the parties contracting; and this goes further than the rule of law, which is that it (fraud) must be proved, and not presumed; but it is wisely established in this Court to prevent taking surreptitious advantage of the weakness or necessity of another, which knowingly to do is equally against conscience as to take advantage of his ignorance.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lamb v. . Perry