Vilas v. . Page’s Empirical Analysis
1887
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2005 · most notably Remington v. Central Pacific Railroad (1905), McCurry v. Gibson (1895)
4 federal appellate · 40 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 Wallace v. Loomis · Railroad Company v. Howard · Woodruff v. . Erie Railway Company · Hoyle v. Plattsburgh & Montreal 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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““If the purchasers on the sale, whether bondholders or third persons, had: paid the purchase moneyin cash, or secured its payment, there would, we-conceive, be no doubt that the lien would be transferred to the proceeds. There would then be a substitute for the thing sold, upon which the lien would attach, relieving the land in the hands of the purchasers. But if could not have been the intention of the court to make a constructive payment on a purchase by the mortgagees, through a cancellatioh of the mortgage debt, equivalent to an actual payment, so as to relieve the property from the charge. Such a lien would be illusory merely, having no substantial quality. The purchasers cannot claim to have the premises purchased discharged from the lien. ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““We are of opinion that the order became effective as an authority to the receiver upon its being filed with the clerk, and that the mistake of the clerk cannot, on the one hand, operate to the prejudice of parties dealing with the receiver in reliance upon the order, or, on the other, furnish a defense to other persons which they would not have had if the order had been promptly recorded.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.