Johnson v. Powers’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 federal appellate · 28 district · 44 state decisions

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 for those who assert this privity to show wherein it lies, and the argument * * * seems to be this: That the judgment against the admiriist.ra.tnr is against the estate of the intestate, and that his estate, wheresoever situated, is liable to pay his debts; therefore the plaintiff, having once established his claim against the estate by the judgment of a court, should not be called on to make proof of it again. This argument assumes that the judgment is in rem, and not in personam, or that the estate has a sort of corporate entity and unity. But this is not true, either in fact or in legal construction.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Owsley v. Central Trust Co. · de Paris v. Wilmington Trust Co.

2. ““It is no doubt generally true that a creditor’s bill to subject his debtor’s interests in property to the payment of the debt must show that all remedy at law had been exhausted. And generally, it must be averred that judgment has been * * * issued, and that it has been returned nulla bona. The reason is that until such a showing is made, it does not appear, in most cases, that resort to a court of equity is necessary, or, in other words, that the creditor is remediless at law. In some cases, also, such an averment is necessary to show that the creditor has a lien upon the property he seeks 'to subject to the payment of his demand. The rule is a familiar'one that a court of equity will not entertain a case for relief where the complainant has an adequate legal remedy. The complaining party must therefore, show that he had done all that he could do at law to obtain his rights. But, after all, the judgment and fruitless execution are only evidence that his legal remedies have been exhausted, or that he is without a remedy at law. They are not the only possible means of proof. The necessity of resort to a court of equity may be made otherwise to appear. Accordingly the rule, though general, is not without many exceptions. Neither law nor equity required a meaningless form. ‘Bona, sed impossibilia non cogit lex.’ It has been decided that where it appears by the bill that the debtor is insolvent, and that the issuing of an execution would be of no practical utility, the issue of ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Adler Goldman Commission Co. v. Williams

3. ““A judgment inrem binds only the property within the control of the court which rendered it, and a judgment in personam, binds only the parties to that judgment and those in privity with them. “ A judgment recovered against the administrator of a deceased person in one state is no evidence of debt in a subsequent suit by the same pláintiff in another state, either against an administrator, whether the same or a different person appointed there, or against any other person having assets of the deceased.” (Aspden v. Nixon, 4 How. 467 ; Stacy v. Thrasher, 6 How. 44 ; McLean v. Meek, 18 How. 16 ; Low v. Bartlett, 8 Allen, 259 .)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Braithwaite v. Harvey