Nash v. Towne’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

78 federal appellate · 17 district · 58 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 216 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Courts, in the construction of contracts, look to the language employed, the subject-matter, and the surrounding circumstances. They are never shut out from the same light which the parties enjoyed when the contract was executed, and, in that view, they are entitled to place themselves in the same situation as the parties who made the contract, so as to view the circumstances as they viewed them, and so to judge of the meaning of the words and of the correct application of the language to the things described.””

   9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Casper v. Metal Trades, Inc. · Hoysradt v. Delaware, L. & W. R.

2. ““Where a simple contract, other than a bill or note, is made by an agent, the principal whom he represents may, in general, maintain an action upon it in his own name; and parol evidence is admissible, although the contract is in writing, to show that the person named in the contract was an agent, and that he was acting for his principal. Such evidence, says Baron Parke, does not deny that the contract binds those whom on its face it purports to bind, but shows that it also binds another, and that principle has been fully adopted by this court. N. J. Steam Nav. Co. v. Merch. Bk., 6 How. 381 , 12 L. Ed. 465 ; Ford v. Williams, 21 How. 289 , 16 L. Ed. 36 ; Oelricks v. Ford, 23 How. 63 , 16 L. Ed. 534 . Cases may be found, also, where it is held that the plaintiff may prove by parol that the other contracting party named in the contract was but the agent of an undisclosed principal; and, in that state of the ease, he may have his remedy against either at his election. Thomas v. Davenport, 9 Barn. & C. 78. Evidence to that effect will be admitted to charge the principal, or to enable him to sue in his own name; but the agent who binds himself is never allowed to contradict the writing by proving that he contracted only as agent, and not as principal. 1 Pars. Cont. (5th Ed.) 64; Jones v. Luttledale, 6 Ad. & E. 486; Titus v. Kyle, 10 Ohio St. 444 ; 2 Sm. Lead. Cas. (6th Am. Ed.) 421.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re L. B. Weisenberger & Co.

3. ““Undoubtedly, the rule is that the proofs must correspond with the allegations in the declaration, but the requirement in that behalf is fulfilled, if the substance of the declaration is proved. * * * Formerly, the rule in that respect was applied with great strictness, but the modern decisions are more liberal and reasonable. * * * Recent statutes in the states also confer a liberal discretion upon courts in allowing amendments to pleadings, and those statutes, together with the change they have superinduced in the course of judicial decision, may be said to have established the general rule in the state tribunals that no variances between the allegations of a pleading and the proofs offered to sustain it, shall be deemed material, unless it be of a character to mislead the opposite party in maintaining his action or defense on the merits.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Dallas Plumbing Co. v. Harrington