Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 136 F.1d 694 - Wright v. Skinner

Wright v. Skinner’s Empirical Analysis

136 F. 694 · 1905

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
July 1915
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 2 district ·

Relationships

Relies on Bruce v. . Tilson · Harvey v. Richmond & M. Ry. Co.

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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““It is not necessarily impossible iliat the payment may have been at the same time a preference, ami a payment made with intent to binder, delay, and defraud creditors; and, if it is either, it seems to me that the bill may be drawn so as to meet the alternative. There is alleged in these bills one transaction, consisting of a payment of money. The plaintiff alleges that it amounted to either a preference or a fraudulent payment, and that in either case he is entitled to its return. I cannot see in such an allegation any such inherent inconsistency as there is in those cases in which it has been held to be not permissible to unite two absolutely inconsistent causes for equitable relief.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The general rule established by the authorities is that in suits in equity of this kind a previous demand is not necessary.””
    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.