Kelsey v. Crowther’s Empirical Analysis
162 U.S. 404 · 1896
Citation profile
42 federal appellate · 22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 84 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1961 · most notably Joseph Guffey v. James a Smith (1915), Republic of France v. French Overseas Corporation the Malcolm Baxter Jr (1928)
42 federal appellate · 22 state decisions — followed in 10 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 Marble Company v. Ripley · Haws v. Victoria Copper Mining Co. · The President Directors and Company of the Bank of Columbia v. Peter Hagner
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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The action was in the nature of a bill for specific performance of a contract for the sale and purchase of a tract of land. If the contract is construed as making it the duty of Crowther to tender the abstract, yet his failure to do so did not dispense with performance or the offer to perform on the part of the complainants. His failure to furnish the abstract might have justified the complainants in declaring themselves off from the contract, and might have formed a successful defense to an action for damages brought by Crowther. But, if they wished to specifically enforce the contract, it was necessary for the complainants themselves to tender performance. To entitle'themselves to a decree for a specific performance of a contract to sell land, it has always been held necessary that the purchasers should tender the purchase money. This ib the rule in the ordinary ease of a mutual contract for the sale and purchase of land. And the rule is still more stringently applied in the case of an optional sale, like the present one, where time is of the essence of the contract, and where Crowther could not have enforced specific performance. In such a ease, if the vendee wish to compel the other to fulfill the contract, he must make his part of the agreement precedent, and cannot proceed against the other without actual performance of the agreement on his part, or a tender and refusal. Bank of Columbia v. Hagner, 1 Pet. 455 , 464; Marble Co. v. Ripley, 10 Wall. 339 , 359.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Pollock v. Riddick · Biles v. Gandy“execute, sign, and acknowledge and deliver a full and perfect warranty deed, conveying to said purchasers the entire title to said premises, and I agree to at once furnish an abstract of title to said premises and other needful papers.” Payment was not tendered within the 30 days, nor was the abstract of title ever furnished by Crowther as agreed. On the next day following the expiration of the 30-day period, a tender of the purchase price was made, and a deed demanded. The vendor refused to accept the money or execute a deed. The court, disposing of the ease, said:”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Jaeger v. O'Donoghue
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.