Sparhawk v. Yerkes’s Empirical Analysis
142 U.S. 1 · 1891
Citation profile
65 federal appellate · 23 district · 42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 250 later decisions (23 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2011 · most notably Board of Trade of City of Chicago v. Johnson (1924), Central Trust Co. v. Chicago Auditorium Ass'n (1916)
65 federal appellate · 23 district · 42 state decisions — followed in 19 states
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 Bailey Assignee v. Glover et al. · Antoine Michoud v. Peronne Bernardine Girod · Peters v. Bain · Hyde v. Woods
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 250 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[The assignees in an “assignment in bankruptcy”] were not bound ... to accept property of an onerous and unprofitable nature, which would burden instead of benefit the estate, and they could elect whether they would accept or not, after due consideration and within a reasonable time....”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In Hyde v. Woods, 91 U. S. 523 , 24 L. Ed. 264 , it was ruled that the ownership of a seat in a stock exchange board is property, — not absolute and unqualified, but limited and restricted by the rules of the association; that such rules, in imposing the condition upon the disposition of memberships that the proceeds should be iirst applied to the benefit of creditor members, are not open to objection on the ground of public policy, or because in violation of the bankrupt act; and that in the case of the bankruptcy of a member his right to a seat would pass to his assignees, and the balance of the proceeds upon sale could be recovered for the benefit of the estate. . While the property is peculiar, and in its nature a personal privilege, yet such value as It may possess, notwithstanding the restrictions to which it is subject, is susceptible of being realized by creditors.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Page · In re Gaylord““At the time of the filing of the petition in bankruptcy, November 10, 1871, and of the bankrupt’s discharge, October 3, 1873, these suspended memberships were confessedly of no value to the estate and were so .appraised, because no possible dividend could be paid equal to the excess of the debts due members over the then value of the memberships. “It may be assumed that the assignees regarded the expenditure of money in the payment of annual dues and charges, and in settlement with creditor members, as not justifiable under the circumstances. At all events, for 12 years after their appointment, and 10 years after the bankrupt’s discharge, they took no steps to obtain posséssion, and asked no assistance in that regard from either the bankrupt or the courts; made no payments to the associations and attempted no settlements with the creditor members; considered the realization of anything as substantially impracticable in view of the situation and of judicial decision; and contented themselves with the hope that masterly inactivity might enable them to assert a claim if by the efforts of the bankrupt the load of debt which weighed down the right to the seats was lifted, and in the progress of years the value of such seats happened to increase, instead of diminish. “Nor did they seek a sale, nor to compel the creditor members to realize upon or agree to a valuation of the seats and prove only for the balance of their claims, under Rev. St. § 5075, if applicable, or otherwise to ”
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.