Bibb v. Allen’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

117 federal appellate · 16 district · 108 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 283 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is a well-established principle, which pervades the whole law of principal and agent, that the principal is bound to indemnify the agent against the consequences of all acts done by him in the execution of his agency, or in pursuance of the authority conferred upon him, when the actions or transactions are not illegal. Speaking generally, the agent has the right to be reimbursed for all his advances, expenses, and disbursements incurred in the course of the agency, made on account of or for the benefit of his principal, when such advances, expenses and disbursements are reasonable, and have been properly incurred, and paid without misconduct on the part of the agent. * * * It is another general proposition, in respect to the relation between principal and agent, that a request to undertake an agency or employment, the proper execution of which does or may involve the loss or expenditure of money on the part of the agent, operates as an implied request on the part of the principal not only to incur such expenditure, but also as a promise to repay it.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Easton v. George Wostenholm & Son, Ltd. · In re Lathrop, Haskins & Co.

2. ““Upon the third assignment of error, which presents the question whether the transactions in which the parties were engaged were illegal, because they were wagering contracts, under the New York statute against wagers, bets, etc., the evidence in the case clearly fails to make, out such a defense. In entering into their arrangement, it is shown by the correspondence and by other testimony in the case that there was no agreement or understanding between the plaintiffs and defendants that the cotton sold for future delivery was not in fact to be actually delivered. In their correspondence as to the terms on which the agency was to be undertaken the plaintiffs were distinctly informed that the defendants did a large business for the best and most' x-eliable people of their locality; that they would hold themselves personally responsible for all orders sent, and hold their correspondents responsible for all orders executed as to margins; that they handled sometimes from 3,000 to 5,000 bales' of cotton a day, and that their customers dealt in orders for from 500 to 1,000 bales at a time, and were entirely responsible. It was also testified by both the plaintiffs and defendant Bibb that there was no understanding or agreement, either express or implied, between them, at the time of entering upon the transactions or during their progress, that the cotton sold for account of the principals was not to be delivered at the time'stipulated in the contracts of sale made for their account.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Haven v. James

3. ““A contract for the sale of personal property which the vendor does not own or possess, but expects to obtain by purchase or otherwise, is binding if an actual transfer of property is contemplated. A transaction which on its face is legitimate cannot be held void as a wagering contract by showing that one party only so understood and meant it to be. The proof must go further, and show that this understanding was mutual— that both parties so understood the transaction. If, however, at the time of entering, into a contract for a sale of personal property for future delivery it be contemplated by both parties that at the time fixed for delivery the purchaser shall merely receive or pay the difference between the contract [price] and the market price, the transaction is a wager, and nothing more. It makes no difference that a bet or wager is made to assume the form of a contract. Gambling is none the less such because it is carried on in the form or guise of legitimate trade.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Mullinix v. Hubbard