Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 39 Tex. Civ. App. 431 - McLain v. Garrison

39 Tex. Civ. App. 431 - McLain v. Garrison’s Empirical Analysis

1905

Citation profile

36
cited by 36 later decisions
3
states following
February 2019
most recently cited

34 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably Turner v. Montgomery (1927), Potter County v. C. C. Slaughter Cattle Co. (1923)

34 state decisions

120190519101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Wilson v. Carrico · Sharp v. Hall · Shackeltow v. Sebree · Owen v. Williams · Cates v. Cates

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

  1. ““An estate of freehold or inheritance may be made, to commence in future, by deed or conveyance, in like manner as by will.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““In the case before us, we have as perfect a fee-simple deed as can he drawn to convey land from the grantor to the grantees, and the only condition prescribed upon its operation in pre-sentí is the one we have quoted above. It was executed without the attestation of a witness, so as to make it a will in any event. We must presume the maker knew that a will could not be executed without a witness, and this is a fact of very controlling importance, when the intention in the execution of the instrument is sought. ' Construing his intentions by his acts, he must have known that an acknowledgment before a notary public in due form was sufficient to make the paper a deed, so far as related to its execution, and that this was not sufficient for its legal execution as a will. The grantor delivered the instrument the day he executed it to the grantees, who were his children. He reserved in it no power of revocation. He continued to live on the lands with his children, in possession and control of them during his life, and never made any other disposition of them. Under these circumstances we must hold that when he provided that the conveyance was not to take effect until after his death, and that at his death ‘the title to the foregoing lands is to vest immediately in my said children,’ he intended no more than to reserve to himself the use and enjoyment'of the property during his lifetime, and that the operation of the gift, so far as possession was concerned, was to be postponed un”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““Provided always, and it is expressly understood that this conveyance is not to take effect until after my death, and that at my death the title to the foregoing described lands is to vest immediately in my said ehildrén.””
    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.