Botsford v. McLean’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 14 state decisions

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

1. ““The vendor, seeing that two of the notes were on interest, assumed that the other two were also on interest, and accepted the same, believing that all wore properly drawn. The purchasers, knowing that two of the notes were so drawn as not to bear interest, purposely abstained from calling the vendor’s attention to the fact. It was held that there was a mistake on one side, and fraud upon the other, and that the two notes should be reformed so as to conform to the actual agreement between the parties; and the decision was affirmed in this court in 1870. In that case there was a certain degree of negligence in not reading the two notes. It is said by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, in the argument before us, that there was artifice used in that case to induce the plaintiff to believe that the two notes were drawn with interest, —that artifice being in drawing and placing before the plaintiff the first two notes, payable with interest, by which the payee was thrown off his guard; but that circumstance was not the basis of that decision, and does not distinguish that case from this. There was nothing there to prevent the payee from reading the notes, and he had abundant opportunity to do so. If he had read them, the mistake and fraud would have been discovered. There was at most, in substance, the representation that the two notes were drawn with interest; and, if that was false, the means were at hand for its easy and ready detection. So in this case. Mrs. Burdick intrus”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. McMaster v. New York Life Ins.

2. ““It has certainly never been announced as the law In this state that the mere omission to read or know the contents of a written instrument should bar any relief by way of a reformation of the instrument on account of mistake or fraud. It is the general rule that where a written instrument fails to conform to the agreement between the parties, in consequence of the mutual mistake of the parties, however induced, or the mistake of one party and fraud of the other, a court will reform the instrument so as to make it conform to the actual agreement between the parties.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. McMaster v. New York Life Ins.