Carter v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““We conclude, in the light of the rule stated, the contract was alternative, and gave the appellant the choice of two courses, a compliance with either of which would relieve him of all liability. Giving to the language of the contract its ordinary meaning, appellant’s obligation was, if appellees title was good, to accept the land upon the agreed terms. Or he could, title being good and appellee's without default, breach or fail or refuse to perform the contract. The contract expressly provides that, if appellant faiis or refuses to perform, he shall forfeit to appellees the $500 deposited by him. For what purpose? The contract itself furnishes the answer when it declares it shall be the agreed or liquidated damages for the breach of the contract. In short, its breach is permitted by forfeiting the $500. The contract provides as much. This conclusion is sustained by the further provisions that the $500- shall, if forfeited, be ‘full penalty and liquidated damages’ for such ‘breach’ thereof. While the word penalty is descriptive merely of the sum agreed upon, the term ‘liquidated damages’ means, in connection with penalty, that said sum was ascertained and fixed as fair compensation for appellees in the event appellant elected or chose to breach or recede from the contract.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bourland v. Huffhines

2. ““If said first parties are able to show good and merchantable title, as aforesaid, in them to the lands herein described, the said second party agrees to pay the said first party upon the execution and delivery of the said deed to him, as aforesaid, the further sum of $3,500 cash, and to execute his notes for the balance of the purchase money as above provided; and in the event said second party fails or refuses to perform the terms of this contract by the payment of the purchase money, as above provided for, in money and notes, without default of the party of the first part, as above defined, then said second party shall as a full penalty and liquidated damages for his breach of this contract forfeit to first party the first payment of $500 this day made upon the land herein contracted for.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bourland v. Huffhines

3. ““The question always is, What is the contract? Is it that one certain act shall be done, with a sum annexed, whether by way of penalty •or damages, to secure the performance of this very act? Or is it that one of two things, shall he done at the election of the party who has to .perform the contract, namely, the performance of the act, or the payment of the sum of money? If the former, the fact of the penal or other like sum being annexed will not prevent the court enforcing the performance of the very act, and thus carrying into execution the intention of the parties. If the latter, the contract is satisfied by the payment of a sum of money, and there is no ground for a proceeding against the party having the election, to compel the performance of the other alternative.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Middleton v. Moore