Martin v. Webb’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

79 federal appellate · 20 district · 132 state decisions

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

1. ““Directors cannot, in justice to those who deal with the bank, shut their eyes to what is going on around them. It is their duty to use ordinary diligence in ascertaining the condition of its business, and to exercise reasonable control and supervision of its officers. They have something more to do than, from time to time, to elect the officers of the bank, and to make declarations of dividends. That which they ought, by proper diligence, to have known as to the general course of business in the bank, they may be presumed to have known in any contest between the corporation and those who are justified by the circumstances in dealing with its officers upon the basis of that course of business.””

   14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Briggs v. Spaulding · Bowerman v. Hamner

2. ““As the executive officer of the hank, he transacted its business under the orders and supervision of the hoard.of directors. He is their arm in the management of its financial operations. While these propositions are recognized in the adjudged cases as sound, it is clear that a banking corporation may be represented by its cashier — at least, where its charter does not otherwise provide — in transactions outside of his ordinary duties, without his authority to do so being in writing, or appearing upon the record of the proceedings of the directors. His authority may be by parol, and collected from circumstances. It may be inferred from the general manner in which, for a period sufficiently long to establish a settled course of business, he has been allowed, without interference, to conduct the affairs of the bank. It may be implied from the conduct or acquiescence of the corporation, as represented by the board of directors. When, during a series of years, or in numerous business transactions, he has been permitted without objection, and in his official capacity, to pursue a particular course of conduct, it may be presumed, as between the bank and those who in good faith deal with it upon the basis of his authority to represent the corporation, that he has acted in conformity with instructions received from those who have the right to control its operations. Directors cannot, in justice to those who deal with the bank, shut their eyes to what is going on around them. It is t”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Manhattan Trust Co. v. Sioux City & N. R. · Fisher v. Simons

3. ““It is quite true, as contended by counsel lor appellants, tliat a cashier of a bank has no power, by virtue of Ms office, to bind the corporation, except, in the discharge of his ordinary duties, and that the ordinary business of a bank does not comprehend a contract made by a cashier — without delegation of power by the board of directors — involving the payment of money not loaned by the bank in the customary way. Bank v. Dunn, 6 Pet. 51 ; U. S. v. City Bank of Columbus, 21 How. 356 ; Merchants’ Bank v. State Bank, 10 Wall. 604 . Ordinarily he lias no power to discharge a debtor without payment, nor to surrender the assets or securities of the bank. And, strictly speaking, he may not, in the absence of authority conferred by the directors, cancel its deeds of trust given as security for money loaned, — certainly not unless the debt: secured is paid. As the executive officer of the bank, he transacts its business under the orders and supervision of the* board of directors. He is their arm in the management of its iinancial operations. While these propositions are recognized in the adjudged eases as sound, it is clear that a banking corporation may be represented by its cashier,— at least, where its charter does not otherwise provide, — in üansactions oiuside of Ms ordinary duties, without his authority to do so being in writing, or appearing upon the record of the proceedings of the directors. His authority may be by parol, and collected from circumstances. It, may be infer”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cox v. Robinson