Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 139 U.S. 118 - Fogg v. Blair

Fogg v. Blair’s Empirical Analysis

139 U.S. 118 · 1891

Citation profile

136
cited by 136 later decisions
11
cited 11 times by the Supreme Court
24
states following
January 1956
most recently cited

43 federal appellate · 4 district · 44 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 136 later decisions (11 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 1956 · most notably Hollins v. Brierfield Coal & Iron Co. (1893), Delaware Hudson Company v. Albany & Susquehanna Railroad Company (1909)

43 federal appellate · 4 district · 44 state decisions — followed in 24 states

4101891190019101920193019401950decided

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 · Scovill v. Thayer · Hawkins v. Glenn · Sanger v. Upton · Peters v. Bain

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

  1. ““It is the settled doctrine of this court, as well as of the supreme court of Missouri, that unpaid subscriptions to the stock of a corporation constitute a trust fund for the benefit of creditors, which may not be given away or disposed of by it, without consideration or fraudulently, to the prejudice of such creditors. * * * “While it was competent for a railroad corporation in Missouri, exercising good faith, to use its bonds and stock in payment for the construction of its road, it could not rightfully, at least as against creditors or stockholders, issue its stock to contractors as full paid, without getting some fair or reasonable equivalent for it. What was such an equivalent depends primarily upon the actual value of the stock at the time it was contracted to be issued, and upon the compensation which, under all the circumstances, the contractors were equitably entitled to receive for the particular work undertaken or done by them. * * * the corporation, by its directors, could sell or dispose of its assets to the prejudice of creditors and stockholders under such circumstances, on such terms and at such prices as indicated, upon the face of the transaction, that they were being squandered recklessly or fraudulently in disregard of the trust committed to them.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Tlie recognition in tlie Iowa statute of tlie right of creditors of corporations to look to unpaid installments of stock subscriptions to obtain satisfaction of their demands did not confer a new right, but is a recognition of a right existing before the statute in virtue of the relations between a corporation and its creditors and stockholders.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““It is the settled doctrine of this court, as well as of the supreme court of Missouri, that unpaid subscriptions to the stock of a corporation constitute a trust fund for the benefit of its creditors, which may not be given away or disposed of by it, without consideration or fraudulently, to the prejudice of such creditors.””
    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.