Union Trust Co. v. Morrison’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

49 federal appellate · 8 district · 11 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 107 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “. “We do not now hold, any more than we did in Fosdick v. Schall, or Huidekoper v. Locomotive Works, 99 U. S. 258 , 260, 25 L. Ed. 344 , that the income of a railroad in the hands of a receiver, for the benefit of mortgage creditors who have a lien upon it under their mortgage, can be taken away from them and used to pay the general creditors of the road. All we then decided and all we now decide is that, if current earnings are used for the benefit of mortgage creditors before current expenses are paid, the mortgage security is chargeable in equity with the restoration of the fund which has been thus improperly applied to their use.” Page 783, 111 U. S., page 679, 4 Sup. Ct., and page 599, 28 L. Ed.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. American Waterworks Co. · Southern Ry. Co. v. Ensign Mfg. Co.

2. ““But it must be conceded that, until the mortgage was enforced by entry or judicial claim, the personal property of the railroad company was subject to its disposal in the ordinary course of business, and, as such, was liable to be seized and taken on execution for its debts. This is not only the common law, but the positive law of Illinois.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Jones v. Central Trust Co. of New York · Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. v. Ellson

3. “‘‘The Holbrook judgment and execution could have greatly deranged the business of the company as a going concern. The rolling stock could have been seized and removed. Whether such seizure could or could not have been presented by the mortgagees is a different question. It would at all events have required legal proceedings, and probably serious litigation, and this the mortgagees did not see lit to undertake. To save the property from being taken to prevent the catastrophe which its taking would have caused, and rhe serious questions which would have arisen had it actually been sold, the intervener gave his bond to obtain an injunction. It was not done for the purposes of being subrogated to the questionable rights of Holbrook under Ms judgment; but to prevent the certain injury to the property itself, which the attempted enforcement of those rights would have involved.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. City Trust Co. v. Sedalia Light & Traction Co.