Wright v. Mattison’s Empirical Analysis
59 U.S. 50 · 1855
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 2 district · 35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2013 · most notably Searl v. School District No. 2 (1890), Producers Oil Company v. Lydia Hanzen (1915)
7 federal appellate · 2 district · 35 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 Lessee James Ewing v. Jacob Burnet · Clapp v. Bromagham · Jackson ex dem. Duncan v. Harder · James Jackson v. Henry Huntington
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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The courts have concurred, it is believed, without an exception, in defining ‘color of title’ to be that which in appearance is title, but which in reality is no title.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Statutes of limitation would be of little use if they protected those only who could otherwise show an indefeasible title to the land. Hence color of title, even under a void and worthless deed, has always been received as evidence that the person in possession claims for himself, and of course adversely to all the world. * * * In order to entitle the defendant to set up the bar of this statute, after live years’ adverse possession, ho had only to show that he, and those under whom iie claimed, held under a deed from a collector of the revenue of lands sold for the non-payment of taxes. He was not bound to show that all the requisitions of the law had been complied with in order to make the deed a valid and indefeasible conveyance of the title.. If the court should require such proof before a defendant could have the benefit of this law, it would require him to show that he had no need of the protection of the statute before he could be entitled to it. Buell a construction would annul the act altogether, which was evidently intended to save the defendant from the difficulty, after such a length of time, of showing the validity of his tax-title.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Coulter v. Stafford“in the actual possession of lands or tenements under claim and'color of title made in.good faith,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.