Thorpe v. Hanscom’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 8 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Noav, when the reason for the rule does not exist, the rule does not apply. Hence, if there is in fact no actual and subsisting guardianship, but the same has been practically abandoned, and the person who had been under guardianship after such abandonment makes a deed at a time Avhen he is in fact of sound mind, and the contract is fair, the deed will be enforced, though the guardian has not been discharged by any judicial action. Elston v. Jasper, 45 Tex. 409 . “The evil and injustice of holding void the deed or contract of a person placed under guardianship during his insanity, made after the guardianship had been in fact abandoned, and when he ivas of sound mind, are emphasized by the facts of this case, where the defendant was in fact sane, and in the possession of his property, engaged in business as a merchant, also in buying and selling real estate, and foreclosing his mortgages, for some three years before the mortgage in question was made, without any objection or assertion of his rights by the guardian. To permit the defendant under such circumstances to repudiate all of his contracts and transactions during those years, simply because his guardian had not been formally discharged by the court, would be a travesty on the administration of justice.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Champ v. Brown · United Pacific Insurance v. Buchanan

2. ““The law as to the contracts, including deeds and mortgages, of an insane person, is Avell settled. The deed of an insane person not under guardianship is not void, but only voidable, but Avhile he is under actual and subsisting guardianship he is conclusively presumed incompetent to make a valid contract concerning his property, though in fact he is sane at the time of making the same. This rule is based upon convenience and necessity, for the protection of the guardian, and to enable him properly to discharge his duties as such. Without this rule it Avould be difficult, if not impossible, for the guardian to execute his trust, for in every action concerning the property of the ward he might be obliged to go before the jury upon the question of the Avard’s sanity, and one jury might find one Avay and another the other Avay.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Champ v. Brown