Drury v. Foster’s Empirical Analysis
69 U.S. 24 · 1864
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 1944 · most notably Allen v. Withrow (1884), Hitz v. Jenks (1887)
7 federal appellate · 24 state decisions — followed in 10 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.
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““But there are two insuperable objections to this view in the present case. First, Mrs. Foster was disabled in law from delegating a person, either in writing or by parol, to fill up the blanks and deliver the mortgage; and, second, there could be no acknowledgment of the deed within the requisitions of the statute until the blanks were filled and the instrument complete. Till then there was no deed to be ac- ■ knowledged. The act of the feme covert and of the officers were nullities, und the form of acknowledgment annexed as much waste paper as the blank mortgage itself, at the time of signing.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“‘“There is authority tor saying that, where a perfect deed has been signed and acknowledged before the proper officer, an inquiry into the examination of the feme covert, embracing the requisites of the statute, as constituting the acknowledgment, with a view to contradict the writing, is inadmissible; that the acts of the officer for this purpose are judicial and conclusive.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ Although it was at one time doubted whether a parol authority was adequate to authorize an alteration or addition to a seale( instrument, the better opinion at this day is, that the power i sufficient.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Allen v. Withrow
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.