Allen v. St. Louis Bank’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

37 federal appellate · 5 district · 24 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 99 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The essential difference between a power to sell and a power to pledge is well brought out in a recent ease in the House of Lords, by Lord Chancellor Selborne, who said: ‘It is manifest that, when a man is dealing with other people's goods, the difference between an authority to sell and an authority to mortgage or pledge is one which may go to the root of all the motives and purposes of the transaction. The object of a person who has goods to sell is to turn them into money, but, when those goods are deposited by way of security for money borrowed, it is a transaction of a totally different character. If the owner of the goods does not get the money, his object and purpose are simply defeated; and if, on the other hand, he does get the money, a different object and different purpose are substituted for. the first, namely, that of borrowing money and contracting the relation of debtor with a creditor, while retaining a redeemable title to the goods, instead of exchanging the title to the goods for a title, unaccompanied by any indebtedness, to their full and equivalent in money.’ ””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Thomas v. Provident Life & Trust Co. · 119 Cal. App. 697 - Pacific Finance Corp. v. Hendley

2. ““The act of congress which authorizes trials by the court ( 13 Stat. 500 ; Rev. St. §§ 649, 700) has enacted that the finding of the court upon the facts, which may be either general or special, shall have the same effect as the verdict of a jury; and that, when the finding is special, the review by the supreme court upon a writ of error may extend to the determination of the sufficiency of the facts found to support the judgment. No bill of exceptions is required, or is necessary, to bring upon the record the findings, whether general or special. They belong to the record as fully as do the verdicts of a jury. If the finding be special, it takes the place of a special verdict; and, when judgment is entered upon it, no bill of exceptions is needed to bring the sufficiency of the finding up for review.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lang v. Baxter