Barry v. Pike’s Empirical Analysis
1869
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently April 1962
7 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.
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is, however, contended by plaintiff that ■S. M. Hart & Co. exceeded their authority in making the note, and they must therefore be personally bound by that note on the general principles of the law of agency in this regard. But we apprehend that the reason of the rule that an agent who exceeds his authority is personally bound, is that he misleads the party with whom he contracts, and is therefore held on the ground of misrepresentation. The reason of this rule being’ absent, the rule ceases. It is provided, therefore, by the Civil Code (2981, 2982) that ‘the mandatary who has communicated his authority to a person with whom he contracts in that capacity, is not answerable to the latter for anything done beyond it, unless he has entered into a personal guarantee;’ and that ‘the mandatary is responsible to those with whom he contracts only when he has bound himself personally, or when he has exceeded his authority without having exhibited his powers.’ And therefore, in the case of Trastour v. Fallon, 12 [La. Ann.] An. page 28, this court said, in discussing a similar question, that ‘to hold the defendants liable the plaintiff must show that he contracted with them personally, or that they misled him by assuming to act for others without sufficient authority.’ “If S. M. Hart & Co. exceeded their authority in making the note in suit, and yet the limitations of that authority were known to the payee, the plaintiff could not, on that ground simply, recover.””
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.