Morgan v. Hamlet’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 federal appellate · 18 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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is sought, in argument on behalf of the appellants, to distinguish their 'ease, at least the case of the two infant children of Samuel D. Morgan, from any case within the statute of nonclaim, on the ground that at the death of their father, his title to the real estate, which constituted the plantation, descended to them as his heirs at law, and thereafter as to the operations conducted by John Morgan in 1864 and 1865, having no guardian, the latter was in equity their representative and guardian de son tort and trustee, so that upon his death, and until they arrived at age, there was no one competent to make a demand against his administrator, within the terms of the statute. But we are unable to appreciate the force of this supposed distinction. The statute in question contains no exception in favor of claimants under disability 'of nonage- or otherwise. The claim of the complainants against John G. Morgan was adverse to his administration, although it may have originated in consequence of a relation of trust; and (here is no ground that _we are able to understand, upon which it can be excepted out of the operation of the statute in question. Their claim was clearly against the administrator of John G. Morgan, whether the latter be considered as the defaulting partner of themselves or of their father. Whatever it's description, it was a claim against the estate of John G. Morgan, and for which his personal representative was in the first instance liable; and the statute”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Newbery v. Wilkinson · Newberry v. Wilkinson

2. “6th. Whether the decree of -July 2'5, 1§82, recited in the bill, is void, simply because it was rendered against an administrator appointed in Illinois, voluntarily appearing therein and submitting himself to the jurisdiction of the court rendering the decree ?. “ 7th. Did the decree of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of-Arkansas, rendered July 25, 1882, bind the defendant as the administrator of David Bal-lentine,-deceased; appointed under the laws of Illinois, and the assets of the estate of said decedent in the State of Illinois in his hands as administrator, in the sense that the defendant was bound to pay said decree without further action against him or said' estate by the plaintiffs, and,, having settled said estate in and under the order of the. county court of. Lake County, Illinois, and obtained his discharge as such administrator from said county court without having paid said decree, is he, the defendant, now liable in this action ? “8th. Even if the decree of July. 25, 1882, aforesaid was not binding in the sense last above mentioned, did the said 'decree become binding, in the sense last above mentioned, by-reason of and upon the rendition of the decree of the Circuit Court of tbe United States for the Eastern District of Arkansas on or about April 16, 1888, dismissing the'bill of review in ■the plaintiffs’ bill mentioned ?”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lawrence v. Nelson