Clay v. Freeman’s Empirical Analysis
118 U.S. 97 · 1886
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 1945 · most notably Clay v. Field (1891), Riddle v. Whitehill (1890)
9 federal appellate · 25 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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 Clay v. Field
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The same rule applies in the case of partnership property in the possession of the surviving partner; he has a right to hold it until the debts of the firm are paid, and if the firm is indebted to him, he has the right to hold it until he is paid. It is true, it is his duty to dispose of the partnership property, and settle the partnership debts. But that is a duty to which he may, at any time, be compelled by the relatives of the deceased partner; and, although his neglect of delay in winding up the concern may expose him to the animadversion of the Court, and to the vigorous exercise of its power to compel him to do his duty, it will not relieve the partnership assets in his hands from the lien of the partnership debts. Being in possession of those assets, he is not affected by the statute of limitations. If the statute runs against anybody, it runs against the representatives of the deceased partner in relation to their right to call him to account. The proposition that the partnership property can be taken out of the surviving partner’s hands and distributed amongst the several partners and their representatives, without a settlement and payment of the partnership debts, including any balance due the surviving partner himself, is a proposition that equity will not for a moment entertain.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Duncan v. Westerlund
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.