Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 113 U.S. 302 - Stone v. Chisolm

Stone v. Chisolm’s Empirical Analysis

113 U.S. 302 · 1885

Citation profile

43
cited by 43 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
7
states following
February 2005
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 7 district · 12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 43 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2005 · most notably Wilson v. United States (1914), 1 E.H. Smith 603 - National Bank v. . Dillingham (1895)

6 federal appellate · 7 district · 12 state decisions

1801885189019001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Hornor v. Henning

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

  1. ““To ascertain the existence of .the liability in a given case requires an account to be taken of the amount of the corporate indebtedness, and of the amount of the capital stock actually paid in; facts which the directors, upon whom the liability is imposed, have a right to have determined,, once for all, in a proceeding which shall conclude all who have an adverse interest, and a right to participate in the benefit to result from enforcing the liability. Otherwise the facts which constitute the basis of liability might be determined differently by juries in several actions, by which some creditors might obtain satisfaction and others be defeated. The evident intention 'of the provision is that the liability shall be for the common benefit of all entitled to enforce it, according to their interest, an apportionment which, in case there cannot be satisfaction for all, can only be made in a single proceeding, to which all interested can be made parties. The case cannot be distinguished from that of Hornor v. Henning, 93 U. S. 228 , the reasoning and result in which we reaffirm. It is immaterial that in the present case it does not appear that there are other creditors than the plaintiffs in error. There can be but one rule for construing the section, whether the creditors be. one or many. To the question certified, therefore, it must be answered that an action at law will not lie, and that the only remedy is by a suit in equity. ’ ’”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The conditions of the personal liability oí the directors of the corporation, expressed in the statute, are that there shall be debts of the corporation in excess of the capital stock actually paid in, to which the directors sought to be charged shall have assented, and this liability is for the entire excess, both to the creditors and to the corporation.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““The total amount of debts which such corporation shall at any time owe shall not exceed the amount of its capital stock actually paid in; and, in case of such excess, the directors in whose administration it shall happen shall be personally liable for the same, both to the contractor or contractors, and to the corporation.””
    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.