In re Forbes’s Empirical Analysis
128 F. 137 · 1904
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 1943
9 federal appellate · 4 district ·
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 Medsker v. Bonebrake · In re Meyer · Vaccaro v. Security Bank · In re Wilcox · Ludowici Roofing Tile Co. v. Pennsylvania Inst. for Instruction of the Blind
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Neither the act of July 1, 1898, * * * nor the act of March 2, 1867, * * * nor the general practice of courts of bankruptcy under either act, has required an allegation of an act of bankruptcy in a petition filed by one partner to bring into bankruptcy his partnership and partners. “The act of 1898 does not require an allegation of insolvency, though the allegation that the partners are unable to pay their debts, which is contained in form No. 2, promulgated by the Supreme Court under authority of the act, comes almost to the same thing. On the other hand, general order No. 8 under the act of 1898 and general order 18 of the act of 1867 alike have provided that a partner refusing to join in a partnership petition filed by his copartner is entitled to resist the prayer of the petition as if it had been filed by a creditor, and ‘shall have the right * * * to make proof if he can that the partnership is not insolvent or has not committed an act of bankruptcy.’ The general order thus appears to provide that the nonassenting partner may disprove that which the petitioning partner need not allege.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Under an adjudication merely joint, it is impossible to discharge the partners as individuals, even from their joint debts, for every joint debt of the partnership is also a separate debt of each partner, and separate debts can be discharged only after an individual adjudication, operating upon the separate estate.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Horner v. Hamner““It is impossible,” he said, “to declare a partnership insolvent so long as the partners are able to pay its debts and theirs, whether out of joint or separate estate, and so the courts have generally held that a partnership is not insolvent unless by the insolvency of all its partners.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Samuels
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.