Good v. Martin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

34 federal appellate · 6 district · 52 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 136 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ Cases also arise where the signature of a third person is subsequent to the making and delivery of the note, and in that case the third person, as to the payee, is not a maker, but a guarantor, and his promise is void if without consideration; but the consideration may be the original consideration if the note was received at his request and upon his promise to guarantee the same, or if the note was made at his request and for his benefit. 1 Parsons, Contr. (6th ed.) 244. Judge Story says that the interpretation ought to be just such as carries into effect the true intention of the parties, which may be made out by parol proof of the facts and circumstances which took place at the time of the transaction.” See Good v. Martin, 95 U. S. 97 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Fisk v. Reser · Sykes v. . Everett

2. ““(1) If lie put-liis name in blank on the back of the note at the time it was made and before it was indorsed by the payee, to give the maker credit with the payee, or if he participated in-tne consideration of the note, he must be considered as a joint maker of the note. Schneider v. Schiffman, 20 Mo. 571 ; Irish v. Cutter, 31 Me. 536 . “(2) Reasonable doubt of the correctness of that rule cannot be entertained; but if his indorsement was subsequent to the making of the note and to the delivery of the same to take effect, and he put his name there at the request of the maker, pursuant to a contract of the maker with the payee for further indulgence or forbearance, he can only be held as guarantor, which can only be done where there is legal proof of consideration for the promise, unless it be shown that he was connected with the inception of the note. “(3) But if the note was intended for discount, and he put his name on the back of the note with the understanding of all the parties that his indorsement would be inoperative until the instrument was indorsed by the payee, he would then be liable only as a second indorser, in the commercial sense, and as such would clearly be entitled to the privileges which belong to such an indorser.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Columbia Finance & Trust Co. v. Purcell

3. ““Territorial courts are not courts of the United States, within the meaning of the constitution, as appears by all the authorities. Clinton v. Englebrect, 13 Wall. 434 , 20 L. Ed. 059 ; Hornbuckle v. Toombs, 18 Wall. 648 , 21 L. Ed. 906 . A witness in civil cases cannot be excluded in the courts of the United States because he or she is a party to or interested in the issue tried, but the provision has no application in the courts of a territory where a different rule prevails.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Corbus v. Leonhardt