Tillinghast v. Chace’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 district ·

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. ““It is not a bill of discovery, because the answer under oath of the defendant is expressly waived. No interrogatories are propounded to either - of the defendants; no effort made to obtain from them, or either of them, by way of sworn answer, anything which could be used as evidence in the case.” Huntington v. Saunders, 120 U. S. 78 , at page 80, 7 Sup. Ct. 356 , at page 357 ( 30 L. Ed. 580 ). “The discovery feature of the bill may be disregarded — First, because an answer under oath is expressly waived in the bill; and, secondly, because the bill propounds no interrogatories.” Excelsior Wooden Pipe Co. v. City of Seattle, 117 Fed. 140 , at page 144, 55 C. C. A. 156 , at page 160 (Ninth Circuit); Tillinghast v. Chace (C. C.) 121 Fed. 435 ; Victor G. Bloede Co. v. Carter (C. C.) 148 Fed. 127 ; McFarland v. State Savings Bank (C. C.) 132 Fed. 399 ; 6 Enc. Pl. & Pr. 732.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Calahan v. Holland-Cook Mfg. Co. · Luten v. Camp

2. ““The complainant contends that the waiver of the oath does not deprive complainant of his right to a full answer and a full discovery from the defendants. This contention finds some slight support. * * * But there is presented no decision of the Supreme Court, or of any Circuit Court of Appeals, for this position, and it seems contrary to principle. The cases cited by Bates cannot be accepted as sufficient authority to overthrow so well established a principle as that a complainant who waives an oath cannot have discovery. The waiver of the oath, which reduces the answer to a mere pleading must also require that ‘every fact essential to plaintiff’s title to maintain the bill, and obtain his relief, must be stated in the bill, or the defect will be fatal.’ ” Tillinghast v. Chace (C. C.) 121 Fed. 435 , at pages 436 and 437.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Calahan v. Holland-Cook Mfg. Co.

3. ““There is no indication in the rules that interrogatories can be propounded to be answered otherwise than upon oath; and it has generally been regarded as established law that a complainant waiving an oath to a respondent’s answer cannot have discovery, and that he cannot except to an answer for insufficiency in its failure to give discovery. * * *””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. McFarland v. State Sav. Bank