Howell v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis
69 F.2d 447 · 1934
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2004 · most notably Putnam v. Commissioner (1956), 40 Ohio App. 3d 39 - Teramar Corp. v. Rodier Corp. (1987)
13 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 state decisions
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 Jenkins v. National Surety Co. · Assets Realization Co. v. . Roth · Peterson v. Miller Rubber Co. of New York · Weightman v. Union Trust Co. · United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Centropolis Bank of Kansas City, Mo.
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Guarantor and surety compared. A surety and guarantor have this in common, that they are both bound for another person; yet there are points of difference between them. A surety is usually bound with his principal by the same instrument, executed at the same time and on the same consideration. He is an original promisor and debtor from the beginning, and is held ordinarily to every known default of his principal. On the other hand, the contract of guarantor is his own separate undertaking, in which the principal does not join. It is usually entered into before or after that of the principal, and is often founded on a separate consideration from that supporting the contract of the principal. The original contract of the principal is not the guarantor’s contract, and the guarantor is not bound to take notice of its nonperformance. The surety joins in the same promise as his principal and is primarily liable; the guarantor makes a separate and individual promise and is only secondarily liable. His liability is contingent on the default of his principal, and he only becomes absolutely liable when such default takes place and he is notified thereof. ‘Surety’ and ‘guarantor’ are both answerable for debt, default, or miscarriage of another, but liability of guarantor is, strictly speaking, secondary and collateral, while that of surety is original, primary, and direct. In case of suretyship there is but one contract, and surety is bound by the same agreement which binds his princip”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““a contractual relation resulting from an agreement whereby one person, the surety, engages to be answerable for the debt, default, or miscarriage of another, the princi pal. The surety’s obligation is not an original and direct one for the performance of his own act, but is accessory or collateral to the obligation contracted by the principal. It is of the essence of the surety’s contract that there be a valid obligation.” . . . Inherent in the existence of any surety relationship is the requirement that the principal owe some obligation. The liability of the surety for the debt to the holder of the obligation is no greater and no less than that of the principal.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““In case of suretyship there is but one contract binding the surety and the promisor, but in the case of a guaranty there are two contracts, one binding the principal debtor, and one binding the guarantOÍT ^ ***”
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.