The President Directors and Company of the Bank of Columbia v. Peter Hagner’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

49 federal appellate · 2 district · 50 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 128 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Although many nice distinctions are to be found in the books upon the question, whether the covenants or promises of the respective parties to the contract, are to be considered independent or dependent; yet it is evident, the inclination of courts has strongly favored the latter construction, as being obviously the most just.”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Pollak v. Brush Electric Ass'n of St. Louis · Telfener v. Russ

2. ““In contracts for the sale df land by which one agrees to purchase, and the other to convey, the undertakings of the respective parties are always dependent unless a contrary intention clearly appears.” “In order to enable the vendor to rescind on account of default of the purchaser, he must perform all precedent covenants on his part to be performed, and must be ready and willing to perform concurrent covenants, and must notify the purchaser that he is ready and willing to perform the concurrent covenants.” 39 Cyc. 1375. “If the covenants of -the vendor to eonyey and the purchaser to pay purchase money * * * are mutual and dependent, the vendor must at law convey, or tender a proper conveyance before he can put the purchaser in default and thereby become entitled to rescind.” 39 Oye. 1537.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Eastern Oregon Land Co. v. Moody

3. ““The time fixed for performance, is, at law, deemed of the essence of the contract . . . . In Sudgen’s Law of Vendors, 275, it is said: ‘The general opinion has always been that the day fixed was imperative on the parties at law. This was so laid down by Lord Kenyon, and has never been doubted in practice. The contrary rule would lead to endless difficulties, if in every case it must be referred to a jury to consider whether the act was done within a reasonable time; and the precise contract of the parties would be avoided in order to introduce an uncertain rule, which would lead to endless litigation . .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 265 Pa. Super. 78 - Tanenbaum v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.