Matthews v. Couie’s Empirical Analysis
1948
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently March 1985
6 state decisions
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 Smith v. Bratsos · Union Bldg. Corporation v. Burmeister
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘It is not necessary that the property should be so described as to be capable of being identified by the written recital or by the name used to designate it in the mortgage. * * * “ ‘It is obviously impossible in most cases to set forth on the face of the mortgage all the articles embraced in it with such precision that any one, by a mere inspection of the mortgage, without reference to any other source of information, can identify them. * * * ’ Vol. I, § 53, pp. 94, 95. “ ‘A description which will enable third persons, aided by inquiries which the instrument itself suggests, to identify the property, is sufficient.’ Vol. I, § 54, p. 96. “ ‘Parol evidence is admissible to identify the chattels mortgaged. Such evidence may aid but not make a description. The mortgage must of itself suggest inquiry which will result in identification. It is not possible to describe personal property so well as to preclude the necessity of such evidence to identify it. * * * ’ Vol. I, § 64, p. 129.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Abbott v. Temple““ * * * there were ample facts of identification in the act of mortgage and On the record to put any bona fide inquirer on notice which, if followed up, as would have been his duty for his own protection, would have convinced him that the car described in the mortgage was the one involved in this case. It is not required that the description of a mortgaged chattel be wholly complete as to details, in order to affect the public. This principle is now well fixed by decisions of the courts of this state, including the Supreme Court. See: Union Building Corporation v. Burmeister, 186 La. 1027 , 173 So. 752 ; Smith v. Bratsos, 202 La. 493, 494-502, 503 , 12 So.2d 245 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Abbott v. Temple
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.