Hardenbergh v. Ray’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

74 federal appellate · 19 district · 15 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 185 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In support of the first proposition, it is urged, on behalf of the plaintiff in error, that the common law, with its limitations and restrictions upon testamentary power in respect to real estate, was in force in the State of Oregon at the date of the execution of the will, and up to .the death of the testator. Without reviewing the authorities, it is well settled that by the common law lands were not devisable, except in .particular places where custom authorized it; This disability of the common law was partially removed by the statute of 32 Henry VIII, c. 1, which authorized persons having title to land to dispose thereof by will, and was construed as restricting the right of devising lands to such an interest only as the testator had at the time of the execution of the will. Under this statute real estate, subsequently acquired, could not pass by devise; 'n other words, under the statute of 32 Henry VIII the will as to lands spoke from the date of it's execution. So that a general devise of all the testator’s estate would comprehend and include all the personalty to which he was entitled at the time of his death, but would not embrace after-acquired land, though such might be the expressed intention of the testator. The reason given for the distinction between real and personal estate was that a devise of land was regarded in the same light as a conveyance, and, as a conveyance at common law would not vest for want of seisin, it was therefore held to be operative only on”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Wilson v. Greer

2. ““It may, therefore, be laid down as a general proposition that where the testator makes a general devise of his real estate, especially by residuary clause, he will, be considered as meaning to dispose of such property to the full extent of his capacity, and that such a devise will carry, not only the property held by him' at the execution of the will, but also real estate subsequently acquired, of which he may be seised and possessed at the date of his death, provided there is testamentary power to make such disposition. 1 Jarman on Wills (5th Ed.) 326, and other authorities cited.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Wilson v. Greer

3. ““ * * * The intention of the testator, expressed in his will, shall prevail, provided it be consistent with the rules of law. 0 * * This principle is generally asserted in the construction of every testamentary disposition. It is emphatically the will of the person.who makes it, and is defined to be- ‘the legal declaration of a man’s intentions, which he wills to be performed after his death.’ * These intentions are to he collected from his words, and ought to be carried into effect, if they he consistent with law.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Boal v. Metropolitan Museum of Art