Babbitt v. Finn’s Empirical Analysis
101 U.S. 7 · 1879
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 5 district · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 1983 · most notably Central Transportation Co. v. Pullman's Palace Car Co. (1891), Jacksonville Ry Nav Co v. Hooper (1896)
22 federal appellate · 5 district · 16 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 James Brown v. John Clarke · Hinckley v. . Kreitz · Campbell v. Howard · Parker v. Hannibal & St. Joseph Railroad
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Nothing will discharge the sureties given to prosecute the appeal from the court of original jurisdiction, but the reversal of the judgment in some court having jurisdiction to correct the alleged error. * * * “Judgment having been rendered against the principal in the bond in the District Court, and the condition of the bond being that he, the principal, shall prosecute his appeal to effect and answer all damages and costs if he fail to make his plea good, it is difficult to see how it can be held that the sureties are discharged when it is held both in the circuit court and the Supreme Court that the judgment of the district court is correct and that the judgment should be affirmed. Neither principle nor authority will support that theory, nor do they afford it any countenance whatever.” Babbitt v. Finn, 101 U.S. 7, 13 , 25 L.Ed. 820 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““As hetwecu the obligors and obligees, all the obligors are principal debtors, though, as between each other, they have the rights and remedies resulting from the relation of principal and surety. When they execute the bond, they assume the obligation that they will answer all damages and costs if the principal fails to prosecute his appeal to effect and make his plea good, from which it follows that if the judgment is affirmed by the appellate court, either directly or by mandate sent down to the subordinate court, the sureties proprio vigore become liable to the same extent as the principal obligor.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.