Turner v. Sawyer’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 federal appellate · 18 district · 40 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 104 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Upon the failure of any one of several coowners to contribute his proportion of the expenditures required hereby, the coowners who have performed the labor or made the improvements may, at the expiration of the year, give such delinquent coowner personal notice in writing or notice by publication in the newspaper published nearest the claim, for at least once a week for ninety days, and if at the expiration of ninety days after such notice in writing or by publication such delinquent should fail or refuse to contribute his proportion of the expenditure required by this section, his interest in the claim shall become the property of his coowners who have made the required expenditures.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 89 Wash. 2d 725 - Jordin v. Vauthiers · Jackson v. Robertson

2. ““It is well settled that cotenants stand in a certain relation to each other of mutual trust and confidence; that neither will be permitted to act in hostility to the other in reference to the joint estate; and that a distinct title acquired by one will inure to the benefit of all. A relaxation of this rule has been sometimes admitted in certain cases of tenants in common who claim under different conveyances and through different grantors. Plowever that may be, such cases have no application to the one under consideration, wherein a tenant in common proceeds surreptitiously, in disregard of the rights of his cotenants, to acquire a title to which he must have known, if he had made a careful examination of the facts, he had no shadow of right. We think the general rule, as stated in Bissell v. Foss, 114 U. S. 252, 259 [5 Sup. Ct. 851, 29 L. Ed. 126 ], should apply; that ‘such a purchase’ (of an outstanding title or incumbrance upon the joint estate for the benefit of one tenant in common) inures to the benefit of all, because there is an obligation between them, arising from their joint claim and community of interest, that one of them shall-not affect the claim to the prejudice of the others. Rothwell v. Dewees, 2 Black, 613 [ 17 L. Ed. 309 ]; Van Horne v. Fonda, 5 John. Ch. [N. Y.] 388; Lloyd v. Lynch, 28 Pa. 419 [ 70 Am. Dec. 137 ]; Downer v. Smith, 38 Vt. 464 . A title thus acquired, the patentee holds in trust for the true owner, and this court has repeatedly held that a”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Arthur v. Coyne

3. “‘ ‘ It will be observed that the right to give this notice of a claim for contribution is limited to a co-ovnier who> has performed the labor. Turner was not a co-owner with Sawyer at any time during 1884, as Alfred A. K. Sawyer (the one against whom the notice was published) did not receive his deed from Amos Sawyer until January 12, 1885, and Turner did not receive his deed from the sheriff until March 3, 1885. He did, however, hold an inchoate title by virtue of the subsequent assignment, August 25, 1885, of the sheriff’s certificate to him. He appears also to have obtained the assignment of certain other judgments which had been recovered by William Hunter against Sanderson and Smith. These judgments were assigned to him August 27, 1884, sales made under them January 13, 1885, and certificates of sale issued to Turner, who thus became the purchaser under these judgments. Neither of these, however, made him a co-owner during the year 1884 within the meaning of the statute, which, providing as it does for the forfeiture of the rights of a co-owner, should be strictly construed. ’ ’”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Mecum v. Metz