Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 86 CAL 184 - James v. Yaeger

James v. Yaeger’s Empirical Analysis

1890

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
3
states following
August 1966
most recently cited

15 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently August 1966

15 state decisions

5018901900191019201930194019501960decided

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 Gordon v. Wansey · Wright v. Mix · Elgin v. Hill

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. ““It is contended by the appellant that the findings of the court do not sustain the judgment. In this contention we fully agree with counsel for appellant. By the payment to the payee the note became extinct, and ceased to be a binding obligation. (Code Civ. Proc., see. 1473; Wright v. Mix, 76 Cal. 465 [ 18 Pac. 645 ].) And a purchaser of the note after maturity—or in this instance, the note being nonnegotiable, whether the purchase was before or after maturity—took it subject to the defense of payment. (Elgin v. Hill, 27 Cal. 373 .) Having been paid, it became functus officio, and no action could be maintained upon it. (Gordon v. Wansey, 21 Cal. 79 .) If the respondent had been an innocent purchaser, it would have been different. But here, not only was the note non-negotiable and the purchase by the respondent after maturity, but his purchase was from one of the makers of the note. This was sufficient to put him upon inquiry. But it must be presumed, in this case, that the respondent took the note with full knowledge of all the facts.””
    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.