Grant v. Naylor’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 9 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““That the letter was really designed for John and Jeremiah Naylor cannot be doubted, but the principles which require that the promise to pay the debt of another shall be in writing, and which will not permit a written contract to be explained by parol testimony, originate in a general and wise policy, which this court cannot relax, so far as to except from its operation- cases within the principles. Already have so many cases been taken out of the statute of frauds, which seem to be within its letter, that it may well be doubted whether the exceptions do not let in many of the mischiefs against which the rule was intended to guard. On examining the cases which have been cited at bar, it does not appear to the court that they authorize the explanation of the contract which is attempted in this ease. This is not a case of ambiguity. It is not an'ambiguity patent, for the face of the letter can excite no doubt. It is not a latent ambiguity, for there are not two firms of the name of John & Joseph Naylor & Go. to either of which this letter might have been delivered. In such a case the letter is not a written contract between Daniel Grant, the writer, and John and Jeremiah Naylor, the persons to whom it was delivered. To admit parol proof to make such a contract is going further than the courts have ever gone, where the writing is itself a contract, and 'where no pre-existing obligation bound the party to enter into it."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Lamm & Co. v. Colcord

2. ““In such a case, the letter itself is not a written contract between Daniel Grant, the writer, and John and Jeremiah Naylor, the persons to whom it was delivered. To admit parol proof to make it such a contract is going further than courts have ever gone where the writing is itself the contract, not evidence of a contract, and where no preceding obligation bound the party to enter into it.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. First Nat. Bank of Plattsburgh v. Sowles