Williams v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis
107 U.S. 478 · 1882
Citation profile
48 federal appellate · 51 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 114 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2013 · most notably Townsend v. Little (1883), Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance v. Talbot (1887)
48 federal appellate · 51 state decisions — followed in 18 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.
Relationships
Relies on William Shields v. Robert R Barrow · Pennsylvania Company v. Roy · Wilson v. Wall · Walker v. Powers
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 114 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Williams is admitted to have had no actual knowledge that the notes secured by the first trust deed were held by the plaintiffs, or that they were unpaid. The knowledge of those facts by Charles T. Davis, through whom Williams made the loan, does not bind him, because upon the evidence Charles T. Davis appears not to have been his agent, but the agent of Sweet and wife. * * * “To charge Williams with constructive notice of the fact that the notes had not been paid, in the absence of any proof of knowledge, fraud, or gross or willful negligence on his part, would be inconsistent with the purpose of the registry laws, with the settled principles of equity, and with the convenient transaction of business. Hine v. Dodd, 2 Atk. 275; Jones v. Smith, 1 Hare, 43, and 1 Phill. 244 ; Agra Bank v. Barry, Irish R. 6 Eq. 128, and L. R. 7 H. L. 135; Wilson v. Wall, 6 Wall. 83 [ 18 L. Ed. 727 ]; Norman v. Towne, 130 Mass. 52 . “The equity of Williams being at least-equal with that of the plaintiffs, the legal title held for Williams must prevail, and he is entitled to priority.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"If the plaintiffs wished to affect subsequent purchasers with notice of their rights, they should have obtained a new conveyance or agreement, duly acknowledged and recorded, in the form either of a deed from the original grantors, or of a declaration of trust from the trustees, or of an assignment from Augustus Davis of his equitable interest in the land as security for the payment of the notes. The record not showing that any person other than Augustus Davis had any interest in the notes, or in the land as security for their payment, an innocent subsequent purchaser or incumbrancer had the right to assume that the trustees, in executing the release, had acted in accordance with their duty."”
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.