Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 414 SW2D 434 - Clyde v. Hamilton

Clyde v. Hamilton’s Empirical Analysis

1967

Citation profile

37
cited by 37 later decisions
3
states following
February 2020
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 29 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently February 2020 · most notably Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Adams (1975), Brown v. United States (1989)

6 federal appellate · 29 state decisions

1301967197019801990200020102020decided

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 Sheffield v. Hogg · Swayne v. Lone Acre Oil Co. · Mitchell v. Mitchell · Davis v. Bond · Mitchell v. Mitchell

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

  1. ““The general rule of property law is that a life tenant may not dispose of the corpus of the estate. It is to be preserved for the remaindermen. At common law, the life tenant was impeachable for waste, and he could not ordinarily open a new mine without the joinder of the re-maindermen. In this state, minerals are part of the land, and royalties and bonuses are part of the consideration for the sale of the land. The royalties and bonuses, therefore, are corpus which is to be preserved for the remaindermen. The life tenant, however, is entitled to the interest or income derived from the investment of the royalties and bonus . An exception to the rule that the life tenant is entitled to nothing but interest on the royalties and bonus is found in the ‘open mine’ doctrine. At common law, if mines or pits were open at the time the life estate began, it was not waste for the life tenant to continue digging for his own use; and the proceeds were regarded as a profit from the land. When the settlor of a trust or a testator had opened the mine, and he gave no directions as to the impounding or expenditure of the proceeds from the mine, the law presumed an intent that the life tenant could expend or dispose of them as the settlor or testator could. So the proceeds did not become part of the corpus to be preserved for the remaindermen. Royalties and bonus, under these circumstances, belong to the life tenant . . . ””
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “In a sense, any life tenant holds the estate in trust for the remaindermen, but “he differs from a trustee in a pure trust in that he may use the property for his exclusive benefit and take all of the income and profits.” * * * * * ⅜ It is a well-settled rule that the life tenant is entitled to everything in the nature of profits or income accruing during his tenancy, in the absence of a contrary restriction or limitation. [Citations omitted.] And, unless the personal property be perishable or consumable, or express authority given in the will to dispose of it, it is the duty of the life tenant to manage it prudently, to appropriate only the income and profits, and, where personalty is sold, to invest the proceeds in such manner as not to diminish its value as a whole. He is entitled to interest on the moneys, but not to consume the principal, unless necessary.... ****** [T]hough R.M. Wagnon [the life tenant] was not a trustee in a strict sense, yet his status was that of quasi trustee, and he owed the duty to his children, as beneficiaries under their mother’s will, to preserve for them the corpus of the estate' of which he was only a life tenant.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “I hereby give & bequeath to my husband for his lifetime all property of every kind wherever situated. Inherited property shall remain intact & revert back to my heirs as designated unless circumstances of need necessitate otherwise.”
    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.