Alexander v. Wilson’s Empirical Analysis
1935
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently March 2019
8 state decisions
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.
Relationships
Relies on Texas Land & Loan Co. v. Blalock · Equitable Mortgage Co. v. Norton · Parish Potter v. Hawes · Houston & Great Northern R. R. v. Winter · Llewellyn v. First Nat. Bank of Lampasas
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““There can be no doubt that the declaration induced the loan, although there is no positive testimony to this effect. An inference that it did not would be unreasonable. The particular point to be considered is whether the mortgagee had the right to rely on the declaration in making the loan and taking the mortgage. He had such right, unless the visible circum stances existing at the time were of such import as to apprise him of the fact that the farm was the home of the mortgagors. That the circumstances were deficient in this respect is plain. The mortgagors resided in town. The use being made of the farm was not appurtenant to their residence there. Woolf oik v. Ricketts, 48 Tex. 28 . Where homestead claimants reside in a city or town, the law does not regard a use of rural land as being a use for the purposes of a home. Const. Art. 16, § 51; Philleo v. Smalley, 23 Tex. [498], 502; Houston & G. N. Ry. Co. v. Winter, 44 Tex. 597 . “Even if known to the mortgagee in the instant case, the circumstance that the place in town did not belong to the mortgagors would not prevent an estoppel from rising against them. This circumstance, too, was consistent with an abandonment of the home on the farm. Woolfolk v. Rickets, 41 Tex. 358 ; Reece v. Renfro, 68 Tex. 192 , 4 S.W. 545 . So at last the homestead character of land on the farm depended solely on the intention of the mortgagors — particularly that of the husband. The rule is firmly established that, where the facts known to the ”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.