Van Beil v. Fordney’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 14 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““As respects mortgages, it is said in 1 Jones on Mortgages, § 647: ‘When a mortgage is free from usury in its inception, no subsequent usurious contract in relation to it can affect the mortgage itself. It is only the subsequent contract that is affected by the usury.’ In those states where the statutes declare a usurious contract void in toto, the current of authorities is that a debt, legal in its inception, will not be destroyed by a subsequent usurious agreement, although it may be thereby formally satisfied and discharged, and the security surrendered, but that on the subsequent security being annulled and avoided, the first is revived, and may be enforced on the ground that a valid, subsisting contract is not affected by a subsequent invalid agreement. Allen & Trammell v. Turnham, 83 Ala. 323, 325 [ 3 South. 854 ]; Real Estate Tr. Co. v. Keech, 69 N. Y. 248 [ 25 Am. Rep. 181 ]; Swan v. Summers, 2 Green (N. J.) [14 N. J. Law] 509; Hammond v. Smith, 17 Vt. 231 ; Johnson v. Johnson, 11 Mass. 359 ; Patterson v. Birdsall, 64 N. Y. 294 [ 21 Am. Rep. 609 ]; Tyler on Usury, 111; 3 Par. on Con. 115.” Van Beil v. Fordney, supra, 79 Ala. 83 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bernheimer v. Gray