Stoutz v. Rouse’s Empirical Analysis
1887
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently February 1982 · most notably Copeland v. Warren (1926), Cowley v. Shields (1912)
1 federal appellate · 29 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 Comer v. Sheehan · Mewburn's Heirs v. Bass · Cooper v. Hornsby · Heirs v. United States Bank of Pennsylvania · Parmer v. Parmer
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The right of redemption is the creature of law, and not of contract. The parties are not, therefore, permitted by special agreement to disannex from the mortgage at the time of its execution, that which the law has declared shall be annexed to it to prevent the undue oppression of debtors by creditors. And a like rule has been applied for similar reasons to the statutory right of redemption. — Palmer [Parmer] v. Palmer [Parmer] , 74 Ala. 285 . "But the reason of this rule, however, does not apply to any fair and bona fide purchase of the right of redemption which is entered into subsequently to the execution of the mortgage. Although courts of equity will scan such a purchase with watchfulness, it will still be upheld, unless procured by fraud, actual or constructive, including any unconscientious advantage, or undue influence, or on a consideration which is grossly inadequate. — Hitchcock v. U.S. Bank , 7 Ala. 386 ; 443; McKinstry v. Conly , 12 Ala. 678 . "It is sometimes said that a purchase of the equity of redemption will be sustained only when it is based on an adequate consideration. — Thomas on Mortg. § 678; 2 Jones Mortg. (3rd Ed.) § 1045. There is much reason, however, in the rule, that in the absence of fraud, undue influence, or unconscionable advantage, the mortgagor may, at any time after the execution of the mortgage, by a new and separate contract, sell or release his equity of redemption to the mortgagee, for a consideration that is not grossly inadequate. Th”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“It is sometimes said that a purchase of the equity of redemption will be sustained only when it is based on an adequate consideration. — Thomas on Mortg. § 678; 2 Jones Mortg. (3rd Ed.) § 1045. There is much reason, however, in the rule, that in the absence of fraud, undue influence, or unconscionable advantage, the mortgagor may, at any time after the execution of the mortgage, by a new and separate contract, sell or release his equity of redemption to the mortgagee, for a consideration that is not grossly inadequate. This we incline to hold to be the better rule. . . .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the right of redemption is the creature of law and not of contract.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Grady v. Williams
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.