Lunney v. Healey’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 16 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Here the owner had fixed the price alone, and the other terms were to he arranged with the purchaser. The contract would only be performed .by the production of a purchaser with whom the owner should actually make a bargain. The evidence on behalf of the plaintiff strongly tended to establish the averments of his petition. It appears that the purchaser by him produced actually executed a contract to purchase the land, hut it also appears that the contract was not performed, and it is inferable that the default was that of the purchaser. In spite of some authority to the contrary we are convinced that under such a contract as is here pleaded the broker is entitled to his commission when through his instrumentality a purchaser has been produced, able and willing to buy, and with whom the owner actually maltes an enforceable contract of sale, even though that contract fails in performance through the default of the purchaser. In such case the vendor may usually enforce the specific performance of the contract, and he may in any case recover damages for the breach. In either way he gets the advantage of his bargain, and the broker has done all required of him. Such is the generally accepted view”’ — citing the following cases: Love v. Miller, 53 Ind. 294 , 21 Am. Rep. 192 ; Love v. Owens, 31 Mo. App. 501 ; Leete v. Norton, 43 Conn. 219 ; Pearson v. Mason, 120 Mass. 53 ; Bach v. Emerich, 35 N. Y. Super. Ct. 548.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Whitefield v. Haggart · Ogden Savings & Trust Co. v. Blakely