Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 101 U.S. 731 - Stewart v. Platt

Stewart v. Platt’s Empirical Analysis

101 U.S. 731 · 1879

Citation profile

198
cited by 198 later decisions
17
cited 17 times by the Supreme Court
28
states following
June 2000
most recently cited

34 federal appellate · 51 district · 62 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 198 later decisions (17 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2000 · most notably York Manufacturing Company v. Arthur Cassell J B (1906), Frank Thompson v. Henry Fairbanks (1905)

34 federal appellate · 51 district · 62 state decisions — followed in 28 states

74018791880189019001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Cook v. Tullis · Donaldson Assignee v. Farwell et al. · Sawyer v. Turpin · Yeatman v. Savings Institution

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

  1. ““The question thus presented is within a very narrow compass, and is not free from difficulty. Its solution depends upon the meaning of the word ‘reside,’ employed in that statute. It is to be regretted that we are not guided by some direct, controlling adjudication in the courts of New York construing the statute under examination, but no such decision has been brought to our attention. With some hesitation we have reached the conclusion that a chattel mortgage, executed by a firm upon firm property, is void, under the New York statute, as against creditors, subsequent purchasers, and mortgagees in good faith, unless filed in the city or town where the individual members of the firm severally reside.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Except in cases of attachments against the property of the bankrupt within a prescribed time preceding the commencement of proceedings in bankruptcy, and except in cases where the disposition of property by the bankrupt is declared by law to be fraudulent and void, the assignee takes the title subject to all equities, liens, or incumbrances, whether created by operation of law or by act of the bankrupt, which existed against the property in the hands of the bankrupt * * * He takes the property in the same ‘plight and condition’ that the bankrupt held it.” Yeatman v. Savings Institution, 95 U. S. 764 , 24 L. Ed. 589 .”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The assignee took,the property subject to such equities, liens, or incumbrances as would have affected it had no adjudication in bankruptcy been made. . . . Tbe latter [the assignee] rep-, resenting general creditors, cannot dispute such claim, sin'ce, had there been no adjudication, it could not have been disputed by -the mortgagors. The assignee can assert in behalf off the general creditors no claims to t|ie proceeds of the "sale of that property which the-bankrupts themselves could, not have asserted in a contest exclusively between them and' their mortgagee.”
    1 later decision 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.