Peter v. Beverly’s Empirical Analysis
35 U.S. 532 · 1836
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 5 district · 39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 89 later decisions (8 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 1988 · most notably Embrey v. Jemison (1889), Palermo v. Luckenbach Steamship Co. (1957)
24 federal appellate · 5 district · 39 state decisions — followed in 21 states
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 Davoue v. Fanning · 2 Johns. Ch. 1 - Osgood v. Franklin · Jackson ex dem. Sternberg v. Shaffer · Jackson v. Thomas
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 89 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In the American cases, there seems to be less confusion and nicety on this point; and the courts have generally applied to the construction of such powers, the great and leading principle which applies to the construction of other parts of the will, to ascertain and carry into execution the intention of the testator. When the power is given to executors, to be executed in their official capacity of executors, and there are no words in the will warranting the conclusion, that the testator intended, for safe ty or some other object, a joint execution of the power; as the office survives, the power ought also to be construed as surviving. And courts of equity will lend their aid to uphold the power, for the purpose of carrying into execution the intention of the testator, and preventing the consequences that might result from an extinction of the power....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Estate of Worthley““The acceptance of a negotiable note for an antecedent debt will not extinguish such debt, unless it is expressly agreed that it is received as payment.” Peter v. Beverly, 10 Pet. 532 , 568 ( 9 L. Ed. 522 ).”
1 later decision 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.