Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 115 F.1d 237 - Cushing v. Chapman

Cushing v. Chapman’s Empirical Analysis

115 F. 237 · 1902

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
July 1935
most recently cited

2 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 1935

2 federal appellate ·

201902191019201930decided

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 Christmas v. Russell · Williams v. . Ingersoll · Hicks v. Roanoke Brick Co. · Stearns v. Quincy Mutual Fire Insurance · Hossack v. Graham

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

  1. ““In its fullest import and broadest construction, this is an executory contract or agreement to thereafter deliver to Newton & Go. 47 of the first mortgage bonds to be thereafter issued by the railway ‘in the construction of its railway,’ and ‘to be made as soon as practicable, and as early as any issue-of bonds are delivered to any one else in the work of constructing said railway.’ X understand tlie law to be that a mere promise, however clear or solemn in character, to pay a debt Out of a particular fund, does not operate as an equitable assignment of the fund, and especially so when it is a part of a mass of property to be thereafter created. To constitute such an equitable assignment, there must be such an actual or constructive appropriation of the fund or subject-matter ‘as to confer a complete and present right on the party-meant to be provided for, although the circumstances do not admit of its immediate existence’; that, if the holder of the fund could retain control over it, with the power, sua sponte, on his part, to satisfy the promise in cash, it is fatal to an equitable assignment””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““In consideration of said sale and assignment [that is, the assignment of a certain judgment Newton & Go. held against the Tennessee Railroad Company, and assumed by the Tennessee Railway], the party of the second part ithe Tennessee Railway] agrees to transfer and deliver to the parties of the first part [Newton & Go.] its first mortgage bonds, to be hereafter issued in the construction of its railway, to the amount of said decree, one dollar of bonds, at their face value, for each dollar of the amount of said decree. The delivery of said bonds to be made as soon as practicable, and as early as any issue of bonds are delivered to any one else in tbe work of constructing said railway.””
    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.