Goward v. Waters’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 24 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The principal difficulty in the case arises from the mention of a consideration in the writing itself.” . . . “. .- .It might, indeed, be questioned whether term ‘in consideration’ was not used to define the conditions upon which the first branch of the agreement should take effect, rather than to set forth its consideration in a legal sense. But whether it be the one or the other, the term has no application to the last branch of the agreement. It is obvious that this last clause could never be supported by it as a consideration. The very contingency upon which this clause was to become operative involves a defeat of that which is denominated the consideration in the first clause. Under the recital of the agreement, no legal consideration could be furnished, in accordance with its express terms, except by ' procuring a purchaser for the property. But there is a clear implication of another consideration; to wit, the ■services in that behalf to be rendered by the plaintiffs. The last clause is intended solely to fix the compensation for such services, in case a sale by the defendant should deprive them of the opportunity to secure' compensation under the provisions of the first clause.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Columbia Real Estate Co. v. Clement

2. ““The position of the defendant’s counsel is undoubtedly true,' that at the time the contract was signed it was a mere nudum pactum. The plaintiffs paid nothing, incurred no expense or loss, and entered into no obligation on their part. They were at liberty to act or not, as they pleased; and would incur no liability by failing to do anything. But it is also apparent that the writing contemplated services to be rendered and expenses to be incurred by the plaintiffs for the defendant; and that the promises were made in view of such future services and expenses. The writing is merely a stipulation, by the defendant, of the terms upon which compensation shall be made by him. Subsequent performance of services and expenditure of money, in prosecution of the employment thus authorized, furnish a sufficient consideration for the promises of the defendant. Train vs. Gold, 5 Pick. 380 . Gardner vs. Webber, 17 Pick. 407. The case finds such a consideration in fact.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Columbia Real Estate Co. v. Clement

3. ““After the plaintiffs had entered upon this employment the defendant could not sell without making the stipulated compensation. If they failed to purchase or find a purchaser within a reasonable time after being called upon to fulfil, he might terminate the agreement. But this had not been done. The plaintiffs are therefore entitled to the price agreed for upon the event of a sale by the defendant himself.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Columbia Real Estate Co. v. Clement