Day v. Cochran’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 11 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““These parties, as we have seen, went into possession originally under a contract for the purchase of the property, and afterwards took a ,deed in fee-simple, but which in fact conveyed only the interest of Haile, Pliipps, and Gribson, who had but a life estate in the premises. Haile and Phipps dying, they continued in possession of the whole of the property, still claiming it as their own. But we apprehend that this does not amount to an adverse possession, much less could it be construed into a disseisin of the reversioners, unless they had elected to consider it so. It is well settled that, where a party has gone into possession of lands under a lawful title, and, after his right has expired, holds over, his possession, thus continued, will not be regarderd as adverse to the party entitled to the reversion. ‘For being once in by a lawful title, the law, which presumes no wrong in any man, will suppose him to continue upon a title equally good.’ 2 Black. Com. 149, 150; Varick v. Jackson, 2 Wend. [N. Y.] 166 [ 19 Am. Dec. 571 ]; Jackson v. Cairns, 20 J. R. [Johns, (N. Y.)] 301; Doe v. Hall, 2 Dow. & Ry. 38. Holton and Barlow, holding over, áfter the death of Haile and Phipps, became tenants at sufferance. Their possession was not tortious as regarded the true owners of the reversion, and was consequently not adverse or hostile to their right. 2 Black, 150 ; 2 J. B. 301.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Thomasson v. Kinard