McFaddin v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
1915
Citation profile
5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently June 1935
5 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 Davis v. George · Cullers v. Platt · 44 Tex. Civ. App. 254 - Gorham v. Settegast · Powers v. Minor · 59 Tex. Civ. App. 620 - Bond v. Garrison
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In the construction of an instrument, where there is a particular description by metes and bounds, and there is a repugnance between the' particular description in the deed and a general description, it has been held that where a grantor conveys specifically by metes and bounds, so that there can be no controversy about what land is included, and really conveyed, a general description cannot control. A general description may be looked to in aid of a particular description that is defective or doubtful, but not to control or override a particular description, about which there can be no doubt. There can be no doubt about what land appellee conveyed to appellants, whatever he may have intended to convey.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Whaley v. Lemmon
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.