Ann Dermott v. Zepheniah Jones’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

27 federal appellate · 2 district · 23 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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““We have seen that where parties make a contract which is not apportion-able, no part of the consideration can be recovered in an action on a contract, until the whole of that for which the consideration was to be paid is performed. ' But it must not he inferred from this that a party who has performed a part of his side of a contract, and has failed to perform the residue, is in all cases without a remedy. For although he can have no remedy on the contract as originally made, the circumstances may be such that tiie law will raise a new contract, and give him a remedy on a quantum meruit. * * * “So, too, if one party, without the fault of the other, fail§ to perform his side of the contract in such a manner as to enable him to sue upon it, still, if the other party have derived a benefit from the part performed, it would be unjust to allow him to retain that without paying anything. The law, therefore, generally implies a promise on his part to pay such a remuneration as the benefit conferred upon him is reasonably worth; and to recover that quantum of remuneration, an action of indebitatus assumpsit is maintainable.’ 2 Parsons, Cont. 523.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States ex rel. Hudson River Stone Supply Co. v. Molloy · American Surety Company of New York v. United States

2. ““It is also proved that the special contract had been departed from in the course of its execution;, that the defendant insisted that alterations and additions should be made in the buildings after they were begun, contrary to the specifications of the special contract; and that the plaintiff had yielded to her requirements. It may have delayed the completion of the stores and warehouse, as it increased the work to be done; but, it having been assented to by the plaintiff without any stipulation that the time for performance of the whole was to be delayed, it must be presumed to have been undertaken by the plaintiff to be done, as to time, according to the original contract.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Virginia Bridge & Iron Co. v. Camp