Jones v. Hert’s Empirical Analysis
1915
Citation profile
18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently February 1982
18 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 Stewart v. Griffith ex rel. Ball · Kernochan v. . Murray · Wilcoxson v. Stitt · William Stewart v. Lewis a Griffith W · Chamberlain v. . Dunlop
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Where the contract of the deceased is of an executory nature, and the personal representative can fairly and sufficiently execute all the deceased could have done, he may do so and enforce the contract. . . . E converso, the personal representative is bound to complete such a contract, and if he does not, may be made to pay damages out of the assets.” “This principle has been extended to contracts for the purchase of real property. In Jones v. Hert, 192 Ala. 111 [ 68 So. 259, 260 ], the court declares: ‘Purchase money due from a deceased vendee upon a valid contract of sale is such a debt of the decedent as the representative may rightfully pay. . . . “ ‘The presumption is that the party making a contract intends to bind his executors and administrators, unless the contract is of that nature which calls for some personal quality of the testator, or the words of the contract are such that it is plain no presumption of the kind can be indulged in. . . . Where a party has entered into a contract to purchase real estate, and dies before it is conveyed to him and before he has paid for it, his heir or devisee is entitled to have his executor pay for the realty out of the personal estate. . . . The executor is not permitted to violate the contract of his testator after the latter’s death. . . . ’ “The result is the contract of sale was in full force and effect when the vendee died, and the amount due upon same was a valid charge against her estate, unless the contract was rescinde”
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.