Austin v. Seligman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 1 district ·

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

1. ““According to good sense and upon principle, there is no reason why a person may not maintain an action upon a contract, although not a party to it, when the parties to the contract intend that he may do so. The formal or immediate parties to a contract are not always the persons who have the most substantial interest in its performance. Sometimes a third person is exclusively interested in its fulfillment. If the parties choose to treat him as the primary party in interest, they recognize him as a privy in fact to the consideration and promise. And the result of the better-considered decisions is that a third person may enforce a contract made by others for his benefit whenever it is manifest from the nature or terms of the agreement that the parties intended to treat him as the person primarily interested. The cases of Hendrick v. Lindsay [ 93 U. S. 143 , 23 L. Ed. 855 ] and Nat. Bank v. Grand Lodge [ 98 U. S. 123 , 25 L. Ed. 75 ], and the expressions in the opinions, do not antagonize upon this proposition, but accord with it. The language of Folger, J., in Simson v. Brown, 68 N. Y. 355 , may be adopted as a correct and accurate statement of the law, as follows: ‘It is not every promise made by one to another, from the performance of which a benefit may inure to a third, which gives a right of action to such third person, he being neither privy to the contract nor to the consideration. The contract must be made fot his benefit as its object, and he must be the party intend”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Barker v. Pullman's Palace Car Co. · Fish v. First Nat. Bank of Seattle

2. ““So it may be said to be definitely settled law in this state that a third person for whose benefit a contract is made does not in all cases have a right of action thereon. To entitle him to enforce the promise there must appear to have been some privity, by contract or otherwise, between the promisee and the beneficiary, some obligation or duty owing from the former to a third person, giving the latter a legal or equitable claim to the benefit of the promise.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Federal Surety Co. v. Minneapolis Steel & Machinery Co.

3. ““Although the subject is one of much controversy, the result of the better-considered decisions is that a third person may enforce a contract made by others for his benefit whenever it is manifest, from the nature or terms of the agreement, that the parties intended to treat him as the person primarily interested.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Barker v. Pullman's Palace Car Co.