Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 163 U.S. 385 - Meyer v. Richards

Meyer v. Richards’s Empirical Analysis

163 U.S. 385 · 1896

Citation profile

48
cited by 48 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
10
states following
February 1956
most recently cited

15 federal appellate · 23 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 48 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1956 · most notably Tyson & Brother v. Banton (1927), Bacich v. Board of Control (1943)

15 federal appellate · 23 state decisions — followed in 10 states

1101896190019101920193019401950decided

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 Ætna Life Insurance v. Middleport · Viterbo v. Friedlander · Groves v. Sentell · Scott v. Hickman · Utley v. Donaldson

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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““None of the authorities referred to by counsel for defendant in error sustain the proposition heretofore stated with reference to the supposed existence and applicability of the law merchant, and the results which it is claimed flow therefrom. On the contrary, both in England and in the United States the doctrine is universally recognized that, where commercial paper is sold without indorsement or without express assumption of liability on the paper itself, the contract of sale and the obligations which arise from it, as between vendor and vendee, are governed by the common law, relating to the sale of goods and chattels. So, also, the undoubted rule is that in such a sale the obligation of the vendor is not restricted to the mere question of forgery vel non, but depends upon whether he has delivered that which he contracted to sell; this rule being designated, in England, as a condition of the principal contract, as to the essence and substance of the thing agreed to be sold, and in this country being generally termed an implied warranty of identity of the thing sold.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““An implied warranty of the validity of state bonds as existing obligations arises on a sale of such bonds having the genuine signatures of state officers and the seal of the state thereon, and appearing on their face to be valid, and which are believed by both parties to the sale to be valid, but which have been stricken with nullity by the Constitution of the state. “An implied warranty of identity of the thing sold, which arises at common law on the sale of goods and chattels, applies on the sale of commercial paper without indorsement or without express assumption or liability on the paper itself.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““He who sells a credit or an incorporeal right warrants its existence at the time of the transfer though no warranty be mentioned in the deed.” Civ. Code, art. 2646.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.