White v. National Bank’s Empirical Analysis
102 U.S. 658 · 1880
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 7 district · 25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 77 later decisions (8 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 1936 · most notably Commercial Bank v. Armstrong (1893), Leather Manufacturers' Bank v. Morgan (1886)
16 federal appellate · 7 district · 25 state decisions — followed in 14 states
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.
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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We are not satisfied that either of these propositions is sound. The language of the indorsement is without ambiguity, and needs no explanation, either by parol proof or by resort to usage.. The plain meaning of it is that the acceptor of the draft is to pay it to the indorsee for the use of the indorser. The indorsee is to receive it on account of the indorser. It does not purport to transfer the title of the paper or the ownership of the money when received. Both these remain, by the reasonable and almost necessary meaning of the language, in the indorser. It seems to us that the court below correctly construed the effect of the indorsement to be to make White the agent of the bank for the collection of the money. If this be a sound view of the legal effect of the written indorsement, neither parol proof nor custom can be received to contradict it. But we are aware of the necessity of proceeding with great caution in a ease of first impression in regard to questions affecting commercial transactions, and we do not, therefore, decide this one, because we do not think it absolutely necessary to the case; for, assuming this to be correct, we think the plaintiff was still' entitled to recover more than he did.””
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.