Otto v. Halff & Bro.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 77 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 81 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““We have not found an authority which sus-' tains the contention of the counsel for plaintiff' in error to tile extent that an alteration to conform the instrument to the actual agreement will forfeit the right to sue on the original consideration. It is true that the language used in some of the cases is very broad, and, when considered apart from the facts, might be. understood to go to the extent claimed, but every decision must be interpreted according to the facts upon which it rests, and, so considered, the authorities cited do not embrace this question. “In Daniel on Negotiable Instruments, vol. 2, p. 1413, the rule is well stated in this language: ' ‘When an instrument has been materially altered, it cannot be sued upon in its altered form nor.read in evidence to support an action even when brought by a bona fide holder without notice; but, when the party making the alteration discharges the burden of proof upon him by showing that the material alteration was made by mistake and without fraudulent intent, the right of action upon the consideration for which it was given remains.’ “In addition to what is stated by Mr. Daniel, as quoted, the authorities sustain the proposition that, where the change has been made with the honest purpose to make the instrument conform to the agreement of the parties, the instrument will be destroyed by the alteration, if material, but the party making the change will be permitted to recover upon the original consideration for which the n”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Benson v. Adams