Curtis v. Holee’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““As previously stated, it is admitted that Haymond did not agree to pay the note and mortgage and never became personally liable thereon, but, since the mortgage was on record at the time of the conveyance of the property to Haymond, the property itself continued subject to the lien of the mortgage after it was acquired by him. While, under such circumstances, the grantee is not personally liable for the debt, nevertheless, in view of the fact that our laws render the land primarily liable for the payment of a mortgage debt . . . the grantee of land subject to a mortgage, as long as he is the owner of the thing which is the fundamental source of satisfaction of the debt, is, to a limited extent, charged with the debt and interested in its payment. For this reason the grantee of the mortgagor who takes subject to a mortgage is not such a stranger to the mortgage or the mortgage debt that he cannot, while he is the owner of the mortgaged property, extend and continue the same as against himself and his successors in interest.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Liebl v. Schaeffer

2. ““We, turn, then, to a consideration of the form of acknowledgment in the present case. If the grantee acknowledged the existence of the debt in writing with-sufficient certainty, that will suffice to take the debt out of. the operation of. the statute. (Chaffee v. Browne, 109 Cal. 211 , 218 [ 41 P. 1028 ]; State etc. Co. v. Cochran, 130 Cal. 245, 251 [ 62 P. 466, 600 ]; Concannon v. Smith, 134 Cal. 14 [ 66 P. 40 ].) An actual promise to pay is not necessary. (Foster v. Bowles, 138 Cal. 346 [ 71 P. 494, 649 ].) When such an acknowledgment is made before the note becomes barred by the statute of limitations as applied to the date originally designated for the payment of the note, it constitutes a continuation of the life of the original obligation beyond the operation of the statute of limitations as applied to the original obligation. (McCormick v. Brown, 36 Cal. 180 [95 Am.Dec. 170]; Daniels v. Johnson, 129 Cal. 415 , [ 79 Am.St.Rep. 123 , 61 P. 1107 ]; Rodgers v. Byers, 127 Cal. 528 [ 60 P. 42 ].)””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wilson v. Walters