Tayloe v. T. & S. Sandiford’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 federal appellate · 8 district · 69 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 115 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““A person owing money under distinct contracts, has undoubtedly, a right to apply his payment to whichever debt he may choose; and although prudence might suggest an express direction of the application of his payments, at the time of their being made, yet there may be cases in which this power would be completely exercised, without any express direction given at the time. A direction may be evidenced by circumstances, as well as by words. A payment may be attended by circumstances which demonstrate its application as completely as words could demonstrate it.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Park v. Stanford · Jacobson v. United National Bank (In Re Jacobson)

2. “In general, a sum of money in gross, to be paid for the non-performance of an agreement, is considered as a penalty, the legal operation of which is to cover the damages which the party, in whose favor the stipulation is made, may have sustained from the breach of contract by the opposite party.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Huntington v. Attrill · Denis J. Murphy, Trustee v. Household Finance Corporation

3. “‘•Is the sum of $1,000 mentioned in the agreement of the 13th of May, to be considered as a penalty, or as stipulated damages? The words of the reservation are, ‘The said house to be completely finished on or before the 2-lth day of December next, under the penalty of $1,000 in case of failure.’ In general, a sum of money, in gross, to be paid for the nonperformance of an agreement, is considered as a penalty, the legal operation of which is to cover the damages which the party, in whose favor the stipulation is made, may have sustained from the breach of contract by the opposite party. It will not, of course, be considered as liquidated damages; and it will be incumbent on the party who claims them as such to show that they were so considered by the contracting parties. Much stamger is the inference in favor of its being a penalty when it is expressly reserved as one. The parties themselves denominate it a penalty; and it would require very strong evidence to authorize the court to say that their own words do not express their own intention. These writings appear to have been drawn, on great deliberation; and no slight conjecture would justify the court in saying that the parties were mistaken in the import of the terms they have employed.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Northwestern Terra Cotta Co. v. Caldwell