Heffron v. Pollard’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 94 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 104 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““We understand the law to he that when a party for the purpose of transacting business adopts an assumed name, whether it be fictitious or the name of another, he is bound by a contract made in that name.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wetzel v. L. Simon & Co. · Martin v. Hemphill

2. ““In the present ease also the name is not a fictitious one. It is the name of a real person. But the contract purports to bind him alone, and upon its face is inconsistent with the idea that the defendant in signing it may have intended to use it for his own business name. His signature as agent clearly negatives the conclusion that any such construction was intended to be put upon it. The intention of the parties to a written contract must be derived from the writing itself when its meaning is clear. Can it be said that the admission of parol evidence to show that the contract before us was made for the benefit of defendant and was intended to bind him does not violate this rule? We think not. The contract clearly shows the relation of all the parties to it, who was to be bound and who was not to be bound, and its legal effect cannot be varied by such evidence.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Martin v. Hemphill

3. ““If the principal be not disclosed it is universally conceded as to nonnegotiable contracts not under seal that parol evidence is admissible to show the principal and to hold him'Aiable upon a contract made in the name of the agent for his benefit. This may seem to be an exception to the rule that parol evidence is not admissible to vary the terms of a written contract, but it is not so held. It is said not to vary the terms of the contract, but to bring in a new party whom the law holds bound by it by reason of his relation to the party in whose name it is executed for his benefit. In such a case the principal may either sue or be sued. But a plaintiff cannot sue both; he must make his election.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Fort Terrett Ranch Co. v. Bell