Stephens v. . Perrine’s Empirical Analysis
1894
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 11 district · 72 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 102 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 1964 · most notably Benedict v. Ratner (1925), Sexton v. Kessler & Co. (1912)
11 federal appellate · 11 district · 72 state decisions — followed in 10 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 Karst v. . Gane · Mandeville v. . Avery · Tremaine v. . Mortimer · Wheeler v. . Lawson · Porter v. . Williams and Clark
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 102 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The Supreme Court has reversed the judgment for plaintiff upon the ground that although such mortgage was void even as to existing creditors, yet, as the mortgagee filed her mortgage, and under it took possession of -the property mortgaged, and sold the same by virtue of it before the creditors represented by the plaintiff had obtained any lien on the property by judgment and execution, or by some other legal process, the mortgagee had the right to hold such property or its proceeds against these creditors. The court stated that the creditors, in order to take advantage of this void mortgage by reason of a failure to file it, must not only acquire a lien upon the property by virtue of a levy or other legal process, but such lien must be had before the mortgagee has reduced the property to possession and sold it to satisfy his claim. In this holding we are of the opinion the court below erred. The mortgage, as to the creditors of the mortgagor, was always void. It continued to be void notwithstanding the fact that the mortgagee assumed to take possession under, and to sell the property by virtue of, such void instrument. As between these mortgagors and creditors, it was the same as if the mortgage did not exist; and the mortgagee could not, as against these creditors, obtain any rights under it. How could a mortgagee in a void mortgage as against creditors obtain any title to property by virtue of such mortgage? As. against them, the mortgagee could not rightfully take the pr”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In re Beede
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.