James v. Haven & Clement’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 2 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Now another defense in this case on the part of the defendant is that this was a wagering contract pure and simple. That is a gambling transaction, 'Without any intention whatever, on the part of the defendant, to deliver cotton when sold or to receive cotton when bought, and that the plaintiff understood this to be his intention. If the jury find that James did not contemplate the delivery of any cotton on the future contracts bought and sold for him by the plaintiffs, and only intended to wager or gamble on the fluctuations in the price of cotton futures, expecting to settle by the receipt or payment of differences, and that the plaintiffs were advised thereof and well understood that in buying and selling for James’ account no delivery was to be made or expected by him even if third parties should become interested in the future contracts entered into by them on James’ account, then this arrangement would be one in which recovery could not be had for money advanced in this connection and to carry out these purchases and sales.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Haven v. James

2. ““The charge deals with the issue as though there was no other evidence thereon than that found in the conversations between Tate, the plaintiff's agent, and the defendant, James, while the bill of exceptions shows fhe course of dealing between the parties which throws much light on the subject, and shows other pointed facts and circumstances directly bearing on the issue and tending to show mutuality in the understanding that no actual delivery of cotton was contemplated.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Lawton v. Carpenter

3. ““Certain it is that the charge does not refer to section 3668 of the Code of 1895 of Georgia, which controls in suits in that state on wagering contracts, and declares such contracts to be against the policy of the law and not to be enforced, nor does it otherwise advise the jury as to what are wagering contracts and the public policy relating thereto.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Haven v. James