Renner v. President Directors and Company of the Bank of Columbia’s Empirical Analysis
22 U.S. 581 · 1824
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 5 district · 50 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 107 later decisions (7 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 1977 · most notably Ogden v. Saunders (1827), United States v. Manton (1938)
26 federal appellate · 5 district · 50 state decisions — followed in 24 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 Yeaton v. The Bank of Alexandria · Halsey v. Brown · Weston v. United States
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 107 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is said, however, that the effect of this testimony is to alter and vary by parol evidence the written contract of the parties. If this is the light in which it is to be considered, there can be no doubt that it ought to be laid entirely out of view, for there is no rule of law better settled, or more salutary in its application to contracts, than that which precludes the admission of parol evidence to contradict or substantially vary the legal import of a written agreement. Evidence of usage or custom is, however, never considered of this character; but is received for the purpose of ascertaining the sense and understanding of parties by their contracts, which are made with reference to such usage or custom; for the custom then becomes a part of the contract, and may not improperly be considered the law of the contract, and it rests upon the same principle as the doctrine of the lex loci. All contracts are to be governed by the law of the place where they are to be performed; and this law may be, and usually is, proved as matter of fact. The rule is adopted for the purpose of carrying into effect the intention and understanding of the parties. That the note in question was to be paid at the Banlr of Columbia, and to be governed by the regulations and custom of the institution, and so understood by all parties, cannot admit of a doubt.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If this [the general custom] is not the light in which these transactions are to be considered, all banks are chargeable with • usury; for all take interest beyond what .is allowed by law, if time is to be determined by the note itself.”
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.