Page v. Hinchee’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 8 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The states which hold that the grantee in a deed, who takes subject to a mortgage and assumes and agrees to pay the same, is not liable unless his immediate grantor was also liable, are as follows: New York, Kansas, California, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, South Dakota, North Carolina, and Oregon; and those who hold to the opposite doctrine are North Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska, Illinois, Washington, Colorado, Tennessee, Missouri, Utah, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. * * * “We have examined the authorities and are unable to harmonize them. We believe, however, that the better reasoning is to hold that the grantee is not liable. “The assumption clause in a deed is inserted primarily for the protection of the grantor, and where the debt is a personal obligation of the grantor, it is necessary, for his protection, that the assumption clause be inserted, and not for the benefit of the mortgagee. Where the grantor is liable, and makes a deed in which the grantee assumes and agrees to pay the mortgage, the mortgagee in an action to foreclose may recover a defi ciency judgment directly against the grantee. But this right comes from a rule in equity, that the mortgagee is entitled to the benefit of all the collateral securities which his debtor has taken for the mortgage debt.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. McCoy v. Spears

2. ““It is well settled that where a purchaser buys land which is encumbered by a mortgage and assumes payment of such mortgage, the mortgagee has the right to enforce the assumption agreement against the purchaser, who becomes, as to the vendor, the principal debtor (Winans v. Hare, 46 Okla. 741 , 148 P. 1052 ; Scott v. Norris, 62 Okla. 292 , 162 P. 1085 ); but the nature and extent of the right has been fruitful of much litigation resulting in a diversity of opinion among the courts throughout the country. One line of decisions holds that there is a direct liability on the part of the grantee to the mortgagee, which may be enforced by the mortgagee in an action at law. The other line holds that there is no direct liability, but that the assumption clause is inserted for the protection of the grantor and not for the benefit of the mortgagee, the grantee becoming the principal and the grantor his surety as between themselves and that the right of the mortgagee against the grantee is an equitable right to reach and subject to the payment of the mortgage the additional or collateral security taken from the grantee by the grantor for the grantor’s own protection, and must be asserted by a suit in equity. Federal courts uniformly adhere to the latter doctrine (citing cases).””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. McCoy v. Spears

3. ““A contract, made expressly for the benefit of a third person, may be enforced by him at any time before the parties thereto rescind it.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State Ex Rel. Commissioners of Land Office v. Prock