Cabrera v. American Colonial Bank’s Empirical Analysis
214 U.S. 224 · 1909
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 3 district · 18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1973 · most notably Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company v. City of Goldsboro (1914), Murray v. Gadsden (1952)
21 federal appellate · 3 district · 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 Peugh v. Davis · Russell v. Southard · Hughes v. Edwards · Brick v. Brick
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * absolutely necessary if the written instrument is to be given a distinctive sanction of the agreement of the parties. But there are well-recognized exceptions. The face of an instrument is not always conclusive of its purpose. In equity, extrinsic evidence is admitted to show that a conveyance absolute on its face was intended as security. The rule regards the circumstance of the parties and executes their real intention, and prevents either of the parties to the instrument committing a fraud on the other by claiming it as an absolute conveyance, notwithstanding it was given and accepted as security. In other words, the real transaction is permitted to be proved.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““But this Section does not exclude other evidence of the circumstances under which the agreement was made or to which it relates as defined in Section twenty-eight, or to explain an extrinsic ambiguity, or to establish illegality or fraud.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““That court (a court of equity) looks beyond the terms of the instrument to the real transaction; and when that is shown to be one of security, and not of sale, it will give effect to the actual contract of the parties. As the equity, upon which' the court acts in such cases, arises from the real character of the transaction, any evidence, written or oral, tending to show this, is admissible. The rule which excludes parol testimony to contradict or vary a written instrument has reference to the language used by the parties. That cannot be qualified or varied from its natural import, but must speak for itself. The rule does not forbid an inquiry into the object of the parties in executing and receiving the instrument.” . v”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.