Rogers v. Dutton’s Empirical Analysis
1902
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently January 1981
13 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 Driscoll v. Towle · Scollans v. Rollins · Russell v. American Bell Telephone Co. · Rodliff v. Dallinger · Scollans v. E. H. Rollins & Sons
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is evident on these facts that there was no sale and that the plaintiff never parted with his title. Rodliff v. Dallinger, 141 Mass. 1 , 4 N. E. 805 , 55 Am. Rep. 439 . Therefore cases where by the form of the transaction the plaintiff had parted with his title and afterwards the property came to the hands of a bona fide purchaser have no application. We observe that the defendant’s being a bona fide purchaser is much dwelt upon in the elaborate argument in his behalf. The phrase most commonly is put forward where there has been a formally complete sale and where therefore the title has passed. There was no complete transaction in this case, and if the defendant is. entitled to prevail it must be on the ground that the plaintiff has estopped himself by his conduct to set up a legal title that unquestionably has remained in him undisturbed. But there is not a shadow of an estoppel in the case. “The only effect of the plaintiff's conduct which was manifested to the defendant was that Simmons was enabled to appear to be in possession of the hay. But it is well settled that entrusting a third person with possession [of property] is not holding him out as owner, and creates no estoppel if he undertakes to sell. The case is more than covered by the decisions. Rodliff v. Dallinger, 141 Mass. 1 , 4 N. E. 805 , 55 Am. Rep. 439 ; Bank v. Bemis, 177 Mass. 95 , 58 N. E. 476 .””
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.