Leonard v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 4 district · 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““When the terms of sale axe agreed on, and the bargain is struck, and everything 'the seller has to do with the goods is complete, the contract of sale, says Chancellor Kent, becomes absolute as between the parties, without actual payment or delivery, and the property and the risk of accident to the goods vests in the buyer. He is entitled to the goods on payment or tender of the price, and not otherwise, when nothing is said at the sale as to the time of delivery, or the time of payment. But if the goods are sold upon credit, and nothing is agreed upon as to the time of delivering the goods, the vendee is immediately entitled to the possession, and the right of property vests at once in him. 2 Kent’s Com. (9th Ed.) 671; Bradeen v. Brooks, ( 22 Me. 470 ); Davis v. Moore, ( 13 Me. 427 ). “Nothing in fact remained to be done in this ease, so far as the sale and purchase were concerned. Defendants bought and plaintiffs sold, without condition or reservation, and the measurement was simply to ascertain the amount to be paid by the defendants. Sellers had nothing to do but receive the agreed price, unless the boom-master refused to act, which contingency did not happen in the case. Cushman v. Holyoke, ( 34 Me. 292 ); Riddle v. Varnum, ( 20 Pick. 280 ). “It is clear, therefore, that the title in the logs passed to the defendants at the time the contract was executed. Cunningham v. Ashbrook, ( 20 Mo. 553 ); Cole v. Transp. Co., ( 26 Vt. 87 ).””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Stewart v. Commissioner

2. ““Merchantable logs only were bought and sold by the parties, but it is a great mistake to regard that provision as a warranty of the logs on the part of the plaintiffs. Unless the parties were destitute of all experience, they must, have known that in so large a lot of logs there would bo some, anil perhaps many, that would not scale as merchantable; and it was doubtless from that consideration that the provision was inserted, that the defendants should take all of that description, and, of ocurso., they were not bound to take any of inferior grados. Regarded in that light, it is evident that 1bo provision was for the benefit of both the seller and purchaser, as it furnished a clear and unmistakable description of what was bought and sold — we say bought and sold, because it is evident from what has already been said that ilu> 11 tie to the logs passed to the defendants.” Leonard et al. v. Davis et al., 1 Black (U. S.) 476, 17 L. Ed. 222 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Noyes v. Marlott