Files v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis
124 F. 133 · 1903
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 1939
16 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 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 Maxwell Land-Grant Case · Graffam v. Burgess · Colorado Coal & Iron Co. v. United States · Pewabic Mining Co. v. Mason · Howland v. Blake
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““But final decrees and orders in equity cannot be reviewed by writs of error, nor can final judgments or orders at law be successfully assailed by appeals. * .* * The difference between actions at law and suits in equity is matter of substance, not of form. It infieres in the natures of the causes of action, in the principles which control, and in the remedies which follow them, and it cannot be eradicated, either by a change of form or by the abolition of forms. A legal cause of action cannot be maintained in equity, because there is an adequate remedy for it at law, and it is only where there is no such remedy that relief in equity may be successfully sought. * * . * What, then, is the character of the cause of action set forth in the petition of the appellee, and what the nature of the relief he seeks? Are they legal or otherwise? ⅜ ⅜ * In effect, the petition was a bill in equity to cancel a decree for and an order confirming a sale, and to rescind the executed contract made upon the faith of it. It states no cause of action cognizable by a court of law, and it invokes no remedy which such a court has jurisdiction to administer. Bills, petitions, and proceedings to cancel or avoid judgments, orders, deeds, or other instruments which form muniments of title, and to rescind sales based upon them, fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of courts of chancery, and are only cognizable in equity in the courts of the United States. The petition for cancellation of the order, and ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Upon the overruling of any plea or demurrer the defendant shall be assigned to answer the bill or so much thereof as is covered by the plea or de mnrrer on the next succeeding rule day or at such other period as consistently with justice or the rights of the defendants the same can in the judgment of the court be reasonably done.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lookman v. Lang““If there is one proposition in the law regarding the rescinding of contracts and the cancellation of muniments of title that is established beyond ■doubt or cavil, it is that the complainant must establish the essential facts of Ms cause of action with clearness and certainty, to entitle Mm to any relief.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Roseboom v. Corbitt
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.