Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 28 ILL 262 - Williams v. Corbet

Williams v. Corbet’s Empirical Analysis

1862

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
1
states following
November 2007
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently November 2007

1 federal appellate · 10 state decisions

30186218701880189019001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Comstock v. Ward

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

  1. ““A contract of indemnity is an original undertaking independent of any collateral contract. It creates a primary liability. The promise of the indemnitor is not to answer for the debt, default, or miscarriage of another, but may be to make good the loss resulting from such debt, default, or miscarriage. [Citing cases.] While the object of a guaranty and an indemnity agreement may be the same- — to save the promisee from loss — the legal effect is different. One guarantees the performance of an obligation ac - cording to its terms. A nonperformance of the obligation constitutes a breach of the guaranty agreement giving rise to the liability of the guarantor. The other indemnifies against loss in ease of nonperformance, the failure to perform does not create the liability, and there is no liability until the ascertainment of a loss therefrom. * * * “Although the ordinary surety or guarantor is a creditor of the principal debtor, the same cannot bo time of an indemnitor who does not undertake to assume or discharge the obligations of another, but has, on his own account, contracted to pay a sum of money upon the occurrence of a certain event, usually the happening or the ascertainment of a loss. There is no privity, either actual or implied, between the promisor in the undertaking the loss from the nonperformance of which is indemnified against and the indemnitor, and the latter, if the loss occurs, does not, by payment of it, discharge any one’s obligation but his own. “ ‘The i”
    2 later decisions 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.