Todd v. Todd’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The appellant’s principal contention is that the evidence is insufficient to justify the finding that the instrument executed by plaintiff and defendant was a mortgage. That a deed absolute in form may, by parol testimony, be shown to have been intended to be a mortgage is not questioned as, of course, it could not be, in view of the many authorities so holding. A few citations will suffice. (Civ. Code, sec. 2924; Montgomery v. Spect, 55 Cal. 352 ; Malone v. Roy, 94 Cal. 341 [ 29 Pac. 712 ]; Woods v. Jensen, 130 Cal. 200 [ 62 Pac. 473 ] ; Holmes v. Warren, 145 Cal. 457 [ 78 Pac. 954 ]; Couts v. Winston, 153 Cal. 688 [ 96 Pac. 357 ].) If the deed was intended merely as a security for the payment of a debt, it is a mortgage, ‘no matter how strong the language of the deed or any instrument accompanying it might be’. (Woods v. Jensen, 130 Cal. 200 [ 62 Pac. 473 ].) Although it has often been said that the character of an absolute deed cannot be changed to that of a mortgage except ‘upon clear and convincing evidence’, the rule is well settled that, where there is a substantial conflict, it is primarily for the trial court to determine whether the evidence in favor of the claim of mortgage is clear and convincing’. (Co uts v. Winston, 153 Cal. 688 [ 96 Pac. 357 ], and cases cited.) ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 121 Cal. App. 437 - Haweis v. Baddour