Silva v. Robinson’s Empirical Analysis
1934
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently July 2018
6 state decisions
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 Williams v. Peninsular Grocery Co. · Forbes v. Fort Lauderdale Mercantile Co. · Southern Express Co. v. VanMeter · Tampa Electric Co. v. Bazemore · Fonville v. Wichita State Bank & Trust Co.
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The rule is that a promise to pay debts from which the promisor has been discharged in bankruptcy proceedings is enforceable though made orally and no particular form is necessary. Merchants Protective Assn. v. Popper, 59 Utah 470 , 204 Pac. Rep. 107 ; Cameron v. Meador-Pasley Co., 39 Ga. App. 712 , 148 S. E. Rep. 309 ; Fonville v. Wichita State Bank & Trust Co., 161 Ark. 93 , 255 S. W. Rep. 561 ; Brannan’s Negotiable Instruments Law (5th Ed.) 328. “The reasoning supporting that doctrine is aptly stated by Mr. Justice Frick in Merchants Protective Assn. v. Popper, supra, as follows: “ ‘When a debt has been discharged in bankruptcy the moral obligation continúes precisely the same as though no discharge had been made. The obligation is a continuing one, and continues as long as the debt remains unpaid or is otherwise released. The discharge merely destroys the legal remedy to enforce the debt, but the moral obligation to pay continues in force. That moral obligation is a sufficient consideration for a new promise whenever the promise may be made. The obligation being a continuing one, the. consideration continues with it, and just so long as the¡ moral obligation exists the obligation is a sufficient consideration for a new promise. If, therefore, a new promise to pay a discharged debt is made, the defense of want of consideration cannot exist. The question, therefore, and the only question is, is there a legal and enforceable new promise? If there is such a promise, that end”
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.