Cutting v. . Cutting’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 84 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 89 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The power to dispose . . . affects personal estate also; and the claim is made by the plaintiff that the provisions of the Revised Statutes ... do not take in personalty. The article in the Revised Statutes, ‘of powers,’ is found in chapter 1 part II, of that revision, and that chapter is entitled, ‘of real property and of the nature, qualities and alienation of estates therein.’ Furthermore it is found in title 2d of that chapter, which is entitled, ‘of the nature and quality of estates in real property and the alienation thereof.’ Furthermore the article itself declares that a power is an authority to do some act in relation to lands. (1 R. S. 732, § 74.) And the language of the article throughout is primarily applicable to real property and not to personal. (Id., §§75, 77, 78, 80, 87, 89, et seq.) Moreover, the revisers, in their notes by saying that if the first and second articles of the title are adopted, a new regulation of powers in relation to lands becomes indispensable, seem to have had primarily in purpose to change the law of powers as to real estate. (5 Edm. Stat. at Large, 325.) And like expressions, with like limitation in application, are frequent therein. On these considerations the claim is founded. On the other hand it is said, if that article does not treat of powers to deal with personal property, then there is no provision of law for the creation of a power to act upon personalty, as the seventy-third section of the article has abolished all powers-as ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Horlick v. Sidley

2. ““Clearly in the nature of things there is no reason why a gift or bequest of personal property, with a power of disposition, should not be measured by the same rule as a grant or devise of real estate with the same power. Nor is there cited or suggested any express provision of statute law that stands in the way of the application of the rule of the Revised Statutes to both kinds of property. . . . It is the duty of courts of justice to endeavor to preserve an analogy between estates and interests in land and the income thereof, and similar interests in personal property. ...””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Cawker v. Dreutzer