Fosselman v. Elder’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““On the trial, there was no dispute as to any of the material facts. It was conclusively proved by two witnesses that the indorsement on the envelope and the paper, of which the foregoing is a copy, were both in the handwriting of Mrs. Fosselman, and there was not the slightest evidence to cast any suspicion on the integrity of the transaction. The learned judge submitted the case to the jury, with instructions to render a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, unless they found that the said indorsement and paper were not genuine, or had been fraudulently altered; subject to the opinion of the court on the question, whether the paper of October 2, 1879, in connection with the accompanying note of same date, and the indorsement on the envelope is a testamentary disposition of the note or the proceeds thereof. “In his opinion on the reserved question, the learned judge has conclusively shown that the paper referred to is. testamentary in its character, intended to take effect upon the death of Mrs. Fosselman, and clearly designated the accompanying note as the subject of the bequest. These conclusions are so fully sustained by both reason and authority that it is unnecessary to add anything to what has been so well said, in the opinion of the court below, on that subject.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Adams v. Maris

2. ““It is true that the testamentary paper of October 2d, 1879, does not designate the plaintiff (Isabella Fosselman) by name, and if we had no written evidence to show who was meant by the pronoun £you’, the bequest of the note would be void for uncertainty; but it is a settled fact that the envelope is addressed to the plaintiff, and why should not that indorsement in the handwriting of the testatrix be taken as part of the testamentary disposition? ... we are of opinion that the inscription on the envelope should be read as the preface to and in connection with the paper enclosed therein, and that they together constitute a valid testamentary disposition of the accompanying note, operating as a codicil to the will of the testatrix.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Wise's Estate

3. ““Without pursuing the subject further, we are of opinion that the inscription on the envelope should be read as the preface to and in connection with the paper inclosed therein, and that they together constitute a valid testamentary disposition of the accompanying note, operating as a codicil to the will of the testatrix.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Adams v. Maris