McAdams v. Bailey’s Empirical Analysis
1907
Citation profile
70 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 74 later decisions — most recently February 1998 · most notably 499 F. Supp. 53 - Aluminum Co. of America v. Essex Group, Inc. (1980), National Surety Co. v. State ex rel. Heimann (1913)
70 state decisions — followed in 11 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 Jeremian Van Rensselaer v. Philip Kearney · Thompson v. . Simpson · Carver v. Carver · Jenkins v. Pye · 2 Johns. Ch. 1 - Osgood v. Franklin
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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The question received full consideration upon the authorities in Cribbins v. Markwood (1856), 13 Gratt. 495 , 67 Am. Dec. 775 , and the doctrine of the English courts was there repudiated, the case being one of a conveyance of a vested remainder. It is shown in that case that in some of the English cases the courts have been disposed to place reversioners and remaindermen in the category of expectant heirs as a matter of public policy, in order to keep them dependent upon the ancestor, to the end that the 'power of the head of the house may be preserved, and that wealth and titular rank may be transmitted together. No such public policy exists in this country, the court declares, our policy being against the locking up of wealth in families from generation to generation, and therefore it is not necessary for the purchaser to take the burden of making good the transaction. Allen, J., speaking for the court, on page 508, said: ‘The inquiry in referencé to sales by reversioners or remaindermen, should be whether in the particular case actual fraud existed. ... In the absence of such proof of actual fraud, I do not think that it is incumbent on the purchaser of such an expectant interest to make good the bargain, by showing that a full and adequate considera tion was paid.’ And again, it was said on page 507: ‘Whatever principle may be adopted in reference to contracts with expectant heirs, secretly selling the chance of a parent’s or some relation’s bounty, it seems to me that ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““. . . it may be confidently asserted that in this State a person, sui juris, owning a contingent remainder in land, or in personal property, may sell the same for such sum as may be agreed upon between himself and the purchaser, provided the former does not stand towards him in a trust relation, and in making the purchase, acts in good faith” (Authorities omitted).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.