Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 85 MICH 561 - Mott v. Rowland

Mott v. Rowland’s Empirical Analysis

1891

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
4
states following
April 1981
most recently cited

4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently April 1981

4 state decisions

301891190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 Miller v. Tiffany · Wayne County Savings Bank v. . Low · Newman v. Kershaw · Townsend v. Riley · Peck v. Mayo, Follett & Co.

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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““It has been frequently held that the place where-the terms of a contract are agreed upon governs, rather than the place where the evidences of agreement are executed. Bank v. Low, 81 N. Y. 567 [ 37 Am. Rep. 533 ]; Coal Co. v. Kilderhouse, 87 N. Y. 430 . In the last case cited the court say: “ ‘The only time the parties were together or in communication was August, 1875. The hank then yielded to the application of the debtor, and consented to an extension upon certain precise and defined terms. They were accepted by the debtor. At that moment the minds of the parties met. This was in Michigan. That State, therefore, was not only the place of contract, but, on the part of tbe bank, was tbe place of performance. Ingram complied witb tbe contract afterwards in Buffalo, but wbat be did there, while in tbe performance of an agreement, was in tbe performance of one already made.’ ””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““It cannot be presumed that the parties intended to enter into an illegal contract. The presumption is rather in favor of its validity. The law will presume an honest intention, unless there is something in the nature of the transaction or in the proofs to establish the contrary.””
    1 later decision 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.