Salmon Falls Manufacturing Co. v. Goddard’s Empirical Analysis
55 U.S. 446 · 1852
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 1 district · 29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 74 later decisions (10 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2007 · most notably Beckwith v. Talbot (1877), Grafton v. Cummings (1878)
21 federal appellate · 1 district · 29 state decisions — followed in 18 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 Penniman v. Hartshorn · Sherburne v. Shaw · Abeel & Abeel v. Radcliff · Smith v. Stanton
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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Extraneous evidence is also admissible to show that a person whose name is affixed to the contract acted only as an agent, thereby enabling the principal either to sue or be sued in his own name; and this, though it purported on its face to have been made by the agent himself, and the principal not named. Higgins v. Senior, 8 Mees. & W. 834; Trueman v. Loder, 11 Ad. & Ell. 589. Lord Denman observed, in the latter case, ‘that parol evidence is always necessary to show that the party sued is the party making the contract, and bound by it; whether he does so in his own name, or in that of another, or in a feigned name, and whether the contract be signed by his own hand (or that of an agent), are inquiries not different in their nature from the question, who is the person who has just ordered goods in a shop? If he is sued for the price, and his identity made out, the contract is not varied fay appearing to have been made by him in a name not his own.’ ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Walker v. Hafer · Mock v. Stoddard““Now, within the principles above stated, we are of opinion that the memorandum in question was a sufficient compliance with the statute. It was competent to show, by parol proof, that Mason signed for the firm of Mason & Lawrence, and that the house was acting as agents for the plaintiffs, a company engaged in manufacturing the goods which were the subject of the sale. * * * The memorandum, therefore, contains the names of the sellers and of the buskers.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Walker v. Hafer
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.