Bean v. Patterson’s Empirical Analysis
122 U.S. 496 · 1887
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions (8 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1992
3 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 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 Jones v. Clifton · Sexton v. Wheaton · Seitz v. Mitchell · Lloyd v. Fulton · Clark v. Killian
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““If, therefore, there had been no other consideration for the deed than a desire to secure for his wife provision against the necessities of the future,' it could not be sustained. It must find its support in the fact, alleged in the recital, that the amount secured was a sum realized from the sale of her individual property, and used by him. It is not materiál whether the recital be accurate in stating that the sum received from the sale of her property was used in payment of the real estate covered by the deed; it is sufficient if Miller was indebted to his wife in the amount mentioned. That the property in Pennsylvania, deeds of which are mentioned above, was used for his benefit, and to pay or secure his debts, is sufficiently established. The amount realized therefrom, as we read the evidence, was greater than the sum named in the trust deed as due to her. That deed for her security stands, therefore, upon full consideration. Had it been given to a third party for a like debt, it would not be open to question that it would have been unassailable. The result is not changed because the wife is the person to whom the debt is due and not another. While transactions by way of purchase or security between husband and wife should be carefully scrutinized, when they are shown to have been upon full consideration from one to the other, or, when voluntary, that the husband was at the time free from debt and possessed of ample means, the same protection should be afforded to them a”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. English v. Brown“[i]t would seem to be a consequence of that absolute power which a man possesses over his own property, that he may make any disposition of it which does not interfere with the existing rights of others, and such disposition, if it be firm and real, will be valid.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ferreira v. Borja
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.