King v. Wise’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

54 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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““There is another view of the case made which leads to the same result. King alleged and testified that he signed each of the notes merely ‘as an accommodation’ party. He does not, either in pleading or proof, indicate the party accommodated with that degree of certainty necessary to a determination, as a matter of law, whether it was Boyd or Showers. That Boyd never requested King to sign either note is undisputed. That Boyd, upon his first knowledge of King’s signature, remonstrated is likewise established, as is the fact that (in Boyd’s absence) Showers requested King to sign. If the testimony of Boyd and King be true, there was no accommodation of Boyd, and, perforce, Showers was the accommo-datee. On the other hand, if the testimony of Showers (to the effect that the cattle deal had not been closed when King signed, and that he would not have closed it otherwise) be true, Boyd was the accommodated party. Notwithstanding the indefiniteness (and some incongruity) of the pleading and testimony, that is a matter which requires a determination of fact issues by a jury before the rights of the parties may be given proper disposition. For it would be flagrantly contrary to natural justice to permit recovery by, or in behalf of, the accommodated party, and of course the law would not allow that course. Brady v. Cobbs (Tex.Civ.App.) 211 S.W. 802 ; Central Bank, etc., Co. v. Ford (Tex.Civ.App.) 152 S.W. 700 ; Joyce, Defenses to Commercial Paper (2d.Ed.) § 55.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bledsoe v. Pritchard

2. ““Deceitful procuration of an apparent agreement is a defense primarily, because there can be no real assent when it is induced by fraud. 1 Elliott on Contracts, § 70. The defense relates back to the inception of the matter and, if established, it operates ab initio. Hence, when the deceit consists in the making of a contemporaneous and collateral promise, the admission of its proof is not for the purpose of varying the terms of the written instrument (whose execution was thus procured), but for the purpose of showing facts which prevented the instrument from taking effect as a binding obligation.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Whiteman v. Bishop

3. ““It would be flagrantly contrary to natural justice to permit recovery by, or in behalf of, the accommodated party, and of course the law would not allow that course.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Siggel v. Lindig