Crawford Allen v. John Hammond’s Empirical Analysis
36 U.S. 63 · 1837
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 1 district · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently February 1991 · most notably Jacksonville Ry Nav Co v. Hooper (1896), Harding v. Robinson (1917)
11 federal appellate · 1 district · 21 state decisions — followed in 10 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 Martin v. . McCormick
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Allen is not chargeable with fraud in entering into the contract, nor in using the most persevering efforts to get possession of the installment paid. That the contract was entered into by both parties under a mistake is unquestionable. Neither of them knew that the Portuguese government had allowed the claim. Can a court of equity enforce such a contract? Can it refuse to cancel it? That the agreement is without consideration is clear. " * * Suppose a .life estate in land be sold, and at the time of the sale the estate is terminated by the death of the person in whom the- right vested, would not a court of equity relieve the purchaser? If the vendor knew of the death, relief would be given on the ground of fraud. If he.did not know it, on the ground of mistake. In either case would it not be gross injustice to enforce the payment of the consideration? If a horse be sold which is dead, though believed to be living by both parties, can the purchaser be compelled to pay the consideration? These are cases in which the parties enter Into the contract under a material mistake as to the subject-matter of it. In the first ease the vendor intended to sell, and the vendee to purchase, a subsisting title, but which in fact did not exist; and, in the second, a horse was believed to be diving, but which was in fact dead. If in either of these cases the payment of the purchase money should be iequired, it would be a payment without the shadow of consideration, and no court of equity is b”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.