Kilday v. Schancupp’s Empirical Analysis
1916
Citation profile
39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently August 2003 · most notably DeLuca v. C. W. Blakeslee & Sons, Inc. (1978), Gendelman v. Mongillo (1921)
39 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 Mead v. Parker · Drury v. Young · New England Dressed Meat & Wool Co. v. Standard Worsted Co. · Hodges v. Kowing · Fisk's Appeal From Doings of Commissioners
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“This agreement was caused to be prepared by the defendant and it begins, `Sold to J. Schancupp.' This is the written declaration of the defendant himself that the plaintiff has sold him the property described, upon the terms described, and likewise it is his written declaration of purchase of this property upon the named terms. The statute is intended to relieve against fraud; to hold that this defendant, by writing his name in the body of this instrument instead of at its end, did not sign the instrument, would help perpetrate, instead of prevent, a wrong. An instrument signed by one in any part of it after the body of it is written, or signed in any part and, when completed, produced from his custody, must be taken to be the instrument of the party so signing. Under these circumstances he authenticates by his signature, or by the signature to the instrument produced from his custody, the instrument so signed, and such a signature fully meets the requirements of the statute of frauds . . . The authorities are equally decisive that the signature may be printed or written.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“entered into between the parties is unenforceable as the same is volative of the Statue of Frauds. Our supreme Court stated in Kilday v. Schancupp , 91 Conn. 29 , 32 (1916); It is immaterial whether the action be one for specific performance, or for damages for the breach of a contract of sale of land. The proof must be in the manner provided by our statute; and the agreement in its essentials must be the same in either action. Lord Farwell succinctly stated the principle in Wild v. Woolwich Borough Council , L.R. (1910) 1 Ch. Div. 35, 42:”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““In the body of the agreement the locality of Emmett avenue is not given. But the agreement bears date at Derby, Connecticut, and from this the inference of fact follows, in the absence of¡ evidence to the contrary, that the property described in the agreement is located in Derby, Connecticut.” (p. 33.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. King v. Stephens
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.