Saunders v. McDonough’s Empirical Analysis
1914
Citation profile
76 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 78 later decisions — most recently April 1988 · most notably Elsbach v. Mulligan (1943), Denny v. Guyton (1931)
76 state decisions — followed in 13 states
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 Marston v. . Gould · Lind v. Webber · Root v. Johnson · Botsford v. Van Riper · McCreery v. Green
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 78 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is, we think, a sound rule of equity, if not law also, that if one of the parties, after the accomplishment of the enterprise, fails or refuses, upon reasonable notice and demand by his associates, to contribute his due proportion to the expenses thereof, he cannot invoke the aid of a court to secure a share of the proceeds. See Lind v. Webber, 36 Nev. 623 , 134 Pac. 461 , 135 Pac. 139 , 141 Pac. 458 , 50 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1046 [Ann. Cas. 1916A, 1202]. But the mere fact that some of the parties paid all the expenses, or furnished all the money used, does not exclude nonparticipating associates from a share of the proceeds. Botsford v. Van Riper, 33 Nev. 191 , 110 Pac. 705 ; Lind v. Webber, 86 Neb. 623 , 134 Pac. 461 , 135 Pac. 139 , 141 Pac. 458 , 50 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1046 [Ann. Cas. 1916A, 1202]:””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““In this view of the case, the expiry of the Aldrich and Towers contract by express limitation on January 1 or 2, 1913, would not of itself terminate the agreement of joint adventure made between complainant and his associates on October 26, 1912. That agreement was not limited as to its duration., It was therefore not terminable at the pleasure of any of the parties, so long as its purpose remained unaccomplished, and had not become impracticable. Berry v. Colborn, supra [ 65 W. Va. 493 , 64 S. E. 636 ], 17 Ann. Cas. 1022, note; Jones v. Kinney, supra [ 146 Wis. 130 , 131 N. W. 339 ] Ann. Cas. 19120, 202, note; 23 Cyc. 454, E.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““But, in order to prevent the extinction of the inchoate equity of the vendees in the present ease by the expiration of the period allowed them for performance, it is necessary for them to- allege and prove, not only the refusal of the vendors to perform, but that they were themselves, able, ready, and willing to perform during that period of time. Moss v. King, 186 Ala. 475 , 65 South. 180 , and cases therein cited.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Coley v. English
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.