Fleshman v. Bibb’s Empirical Analysis
1916
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently September 1938
11 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 Manley v. Park · Greene v. McAuley · Trustees of American Bank v. McComb · City National Bank v. Hundley
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The notes were sold the next day after their execution at a discount of twenty per cent.; they were made by parties who were perfectly solvent; they were sold, along with certain other notes of the same date and amount to the same purchasers; the company was getting rid of all these notes preparatory to leaving the county at once; and the officer of the company who made the sale to Bibb, though introduced to him by an agent whom Bibb knew well, was himself a stranger to Bibb. It is claimed that these facts, viewed with the further fact that Bibb knew the nature of the consideration for which the notes were given, were sufficient to put him upon inquiry which should have led him to a discovery of the alleged fraud and failure of consideration. An entirely sufficient answer to this claim is found in the fact that Fleshman himself testifies, in effect, that he did not suspect any fraud or failure of consideration at the time Bibb bought the notes. An inquiry addressed to the maker, therefore, would not have informed Bibb of any fraud. “ ‘Those who execute negotiable paper and set it afloat are chargeable with a much higher degree of diligence and caution than those who purchase such paper in due course of commercial transactions.’ Vaughan [Vaughn] v. Johnson, 20 Idaho 669 , 119 Pac. 879 , 37 L. R. A. (N. S.) 816, 818. “In our view of the evidence, if the defendant in error can be said to have acted negligently or to have been affected by suspicious circumstances in taking the n”
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.