Mathews Bros. v. Bernius’s Empirical Analysis
1930
Citation profile
71 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently November 1983 · most notably Shell Petroleum Corp. v. Calcasieu Real Estate & Oil Co. (1936), D. H. Holmes Co. v. Morris (1937)
71 state decisions
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 R. J. & B. F. Camp Lumber Co. v. Tedder · Lorio v. Gladney · S. B. Hicks Motor Co. v. Caldwell
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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The wife, in such' a case as. the one here presented, is in the same position as she would be, if it appeared that she could not convey title, not because the community owned the property, but because some stranger owned 'it. The fact that the community owned the property, instead of some third person, is here an unimportant circumstance. Where, as was the case here, the broker’s contract was to find a purchaser, his right to his commission is dependent upon whether he has found and produced one, who is able, ready; and willing to buy on the terms prescribed by his principal. When the broker produces such a purchaser, he is entitled to his commission, although the sale is not. consummated, because of the inability of the vendor to comply with his -offer. 2 C. J. pp. 769, 770. The broker, in such a case, in the absence of notice to the contrary, has the right to act upon the assumption that his principal has a marketable title. R. J. & B. F. Camp Lumber Co. v. Tedder, 78 Fla. 183 , 82 So. 865 .””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““It is obvious from section 1 of this act that a married woman has the right, not only to bind herself and her separate property for her benefit or for the benefit of a third person, without the authorization of her husband, but. also to bind herself apd her separate property for' his benefit. As she may bind herself for the benefit of her husband, who is by law the head and master of the community, and responsible for its debts, by reasonable implication she may bind herself for a debt of the community, for such a debt-is the husband’s debt.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Generally speaking, Out excepting the right to contract with their husbands, married women have, under the Act of 1926, as much power to contract debts as if they were single, though not so as to bind the community, or interfere with the husband’s rights as head and master thereof.””
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.