Stanley v. Colt’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 federal appellate · 1 district · 76 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 109 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The heirs cannot recover unless they can show that the devise was upon some condition, or that there was some limitation made in the will in their favor: It is not sufficient to show that the lands have been diverted from the use- for which they were devis.ed, or that they had not been enjoyed by the beneficiaries in the particular manner described by the testator; for, where lands have been devised to a charitable use in fee simple, the heir has no more interest in, and no more right to, the lands, than he has when they are devised to an individual in fee simple, either directly or in trust. The public have an interest in the execution of public charities, and the beneficiaries have an interest; and if the directions contained in the will of the testátor, either as to the manner of enjoyment or the objects who are to-be benefited by his bounty, are departed from, either the public or the beneficiaries, if they are sufficiently certain and have a sufficient vested interest, may have a remedy. * * * That although the law allows testators to' impose conditions subsequent, a breach of which will create a forfeiture, yet the law deems it improbable that the testator will do so, and therefore leans against any construction which would result in such a condition. Courts will not give it that effect by construction.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Board of Com'rs v. Young

2. ““It is true that the word ‘proviso’ is an appropriate one to constitute a common-law condition in a deed or will, Irat this is not the fixed and invariable meaning attached to it' by tlie law in these instruments. On the contrary, it gives way to the intent of the parties as gathered from an examination of tlie whole instrument, and has frequently been thus explained and applied as expressing simply a covenant or limitation in trust.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Oregon & C. R.

3. ““The distinction between a power and a trust is marked and, obvious. Powers, as Chief Justice Wilmot observed, are never imperative; they leave the act to be done at the will of the party to whom they are given. Trusts are alwavs imperative, and are obligatory upon the conscience of the party intrusted.” Stanley v. Colt, 5 Wall. 119 , 168 ( 18 L. Ed. 502 ). Also see 39 Cyc. 22, and citations.”

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