Arnett v. Arnett’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““This section, unlike that which allows dower in real estate, limits the wife’s right to dower to the slaves of which the husband was, at the time of his death, seised or possessed, and cuts oft all claim to dower where the slaves have been disposed of prior to his death, and this without her co-operation or assent. The whole question then turns upon the effect of the levy, which, although insufficient to divest the defendant in execution of title to the property levied upon — for that does not pass until after sale — does, when made on personal estate, disseise the defendant and dispossess him of the property levied upon; for whether the officer takes the property into possession or not, it is, in contemplation of law, in his custody; he is responsible for it, and has a right to hold it against the claim's of the defendant in execu tion and all others. It Is taken in satisfaction of the debt, and is held and taken as such until sold or the levy is otherwise discharged. The levy in this case was not only a disseisin in law, but also in fact; for the property was not only actually taken out of his possession, but beyond the control of the defendant, or his power to reclaim or reduce it to possession by mere force of legal right. The defendant in execution, therefore, had not at the time of his death such seisin or possession as to entitle complainant to dower in the slaves.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Mckenzie