Morgan v. Struthers’s Empirical Analysis
131 U.S. 246 · 1889
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions (7 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 1949 · most notably United States v. Crescent Amusement Co. (1944), Steele v. Drummond (1927)
1 federal appellate · 18 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 Burke v. Smith · Getty v. . Devlin · White Mountains Railroad v. Eastman · White v. . Kuntz
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““* * * for as stated by Mr. Justice Lamar, in Morgan v. Struthers, 131 U. S. 246, 254 (9 Sup. Ct. 726, 729: 33 L. Ed. 132 ): ‘A corporation has no legal capacity to release an original subscriber to its capital stock from payment of it, in whole or in any part, and that any arrangement with him by which the company, its creditors or stockholders, shall lose any part of that subscription, is ultra vires and a fraud upon creditors and the co-subscribers: Burke v. Smith, 16 Wall. (U. S.) 390, 395 ( 21 L. Ed. 361 ); Bedford Railroad Co. v. Bowser, 48 Pa. 29 ; Green’s Brice’s Ultra Vires. This doctrine rests upon the principle that the stock subscribed, both paid and Unpaid, is the capital of the company, and its means of carrying out the object for which it was chartered and organized. ’ ’ ’”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“A contract, fair and honest in itself, and untainted with actual fraud, entered into by a subscriber of stock with other subscribers, to the effect that they will purchase the same, and pay to him the amount paid by him, if at a time specified he chooses to sell the same, is not contrary to public policy, and can be enforced against the party to it.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.