Ashurst v. McKenzie’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

31 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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Chancery jurisdiction to establish disputed boundaries is effectuated through a commission appointed to go upon the land and ascertain, fix and mark the true line, or being unable to determine and rehabilitate the real boundary, to establish a line between the adjacent proprietors which, though it is not assumed or intended to be identical with the original and true line, yet leaves to each proprietor the acreage to which he is entitled. The duty that would devolve upon such commission in this case manifestly would not be the ascertainment and location of the original line, or the establishment of an equitable boundary not identical with the original, but merely a determination upon the contention of the parties pro and con whether one or the other line claimed by them respectively is the true boundary, involving in reality a decision by the commission, subject to confirmation or rejection by the court, as to the ownership of the 10 acres in controversy. And the fact that no commission was deemed necessary or appointed here demonstrates, if anything further were needed to that end. that the court on this bill, and under this evidence, could not, and did not undertake to, dispel confusion as to the boundary,- but only undertook to determine a controverted issue of fact as to the title to the land in question. We are very clear that the chancery court was without jurisdiction to this end on the case presented to it. It was not a case of confusion of boundaries. Story, Eq. Jur.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Jenkins v. Raulston · Jasper v. Eddins

2. ““The jurisdiction of chancery to establish disputed boundaries is ancient and well defined. It does not arise upon any mere dispute as to the location of the boundary between adjacent parcels of land, or even upon a mere dispute as to such location of a confused or obliterated line. There must in addition to all this be some special ground of equitable interposition. Such grounds, it is said, may be predicated of the fraud or neglect of duty of the' defendant, whereby the confusion and obliteration has resulted; and where the line is marked upon the surface of the ground, and is plowed over and obliterated for the purposes of a fraudulent insistence that it is elsewhere than at its true location; or by a person having at the time possession of his own and the adjoining parcel, and thus being under a duty of maintaining and preserving the demarkation of the two tracts.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Jasper v. Eddins