Everman v. Herndon’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 10 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. ““Looking to the only authority given by Herndon to Cross Bros, to make sale of the land, it is found to be limited to that of accepting the $4,000 propo sition. * * * This firm was specially authorized to do and perform one particular act, viz., to accept a definite proposition which had before then been submitted to Herndon. Nothing is bettor settled in the law than that one dealing with an agent expressly appointed to do a particular act must inform himself of the extent of authority conferred, and must see to it that the act done is within the authority. * * * They (Cross Bros.) were authorized to accept the ⅜4,000 proposition, which was to pay that sum half in cash and the balance in one and two years, with interest at 8 per cent, per annum from date. They entered into an agreement under which the whole purchase price was payable in cash, which may have been a better or worse contract than that they were authorized to make, determinable by circumstances, but which was certainly not the contract they were directed and empowered to make. In legal effect, here was an offer by Ilerndon to sell his land at a fixed price, hall' in cash and the remainder in one and two years, with interest at 8 per cent., and a counter proposition by Everman & Blanton to buy at the price named, payable in cash. There is not a legal identity between the contract which Cross Bros, were authorized to make and the one they attempted to make, and their principal, Ilerndon, was not bound.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Henry v. Lane

2. “the agency of the broker extends only to bringing the parties together. He is not authorized to make sale of the customer's land, or to make a contract of sale binding on him.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 943 So. 2d 35 - Stockstill v. Gammill