Aspinwall v. Butler’s Empirical Analysis
133 U.S. 595 · 1890
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1934 · most notably Scott v. Deweese (1901), Pacific National Bank v. Eaton (1891)
16 federal appellate · 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 Upton Assignee v. Tribilcock · Kennedy v. Gibson · Scovill v. Thayer · Casey v. Galli · Sawyer v. Hoag
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““There was no express condition that the individual subscriptions should, be void if the whole $600,000 was not subscribed; and, in our judgment, there was no implied condition in law to that effect. Each subscriber, by paying the amount of his subscription, thereby indicated that it was noti made on any such condition. It is not libe the case of creditors signing a composition deed to take a certain proportion of their claims in discharge of their debtor. The fixed amount of capital stock In business corporations often remains unfilled, both as to the number of shares subscribed and as to payment of installments ; and the unsubscribed stock is issued from time to time as the exigencies of the company may require. The fact that some of the stock remains unsubscribed is not sufficient ground for a particular stockholder to withdraw his capital.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In these remarks we entirely concur, and do not see why they do not furnish a complete answer to the objection arising from the change of amount. There was no agreement or condition that the amount should not be changed. The making of the change, therefore, could not have the effect of enabling the defendant to repudiate his subscription and his acceptance of the stock, unless he could 'show that the change was fraudulently made, or was made to such an inequitable extent as to defeat the purpose and object of the increase. If these views are correct, 1+ makes no manner of difference what the defendant afterwards did- in the way of objection or protest, either at the stockholders’ meeting or elsewhere.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The circumstance that the original proposal was for an increase of $500,000, subsequently reduced to the amount actually paid in, does not seem to affect the question, for the amount of the increase within the maximum was always subject to the discretionary power of the association itself, exerted in accordance with its articles of association, and to the approval and confirmation of the comptroller of the currency.””
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.