Hammer v. Tuffy’s Empirical Analysis
145 F.2d 447 · 1944
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1988 · most notably City of New York v. Saper (1949), Littleton v. Kincaid (1950)
20 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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 Thomas v. Western Car Co. · United States v. Childs · People v. . American Loan Trust Co. · Johnson v. Norris · Cloutman v. Weill
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““On the merits we are also not in agreement; but here the division is different. Judge Swan and I think that the order should be affirmed, on the grounds taken below. The question this time depends upon the meaning of § 48, sub. a(2), of the Bankruptcy Act of the words: ‘moneyS * * * realized by the trustees from property turned over in kind by them’ (receivers) 'to the trustees.’ The question is whether the claims of the bankrupt against the two decedents’ estates, were ‘property turned over in kind’ by Tuffy, as receiver, to Tuffy, as trustee. If they were ‘turned over’ at all, they were indeed turned over ‘in kind’; but we think that they were not ‘turned over.’ All that happened was that Tuffy was appointed trustee. We think that the clause refers to such property as at least permits of physical transfer: e. g. chattels, or notes, bonds, warehouse receipts or the like, which are regarded for many purposes as incorporating the choses in action or the chattels of which they are the evidence. We do not believe that a receiver, who has no control over such causes of action as are here in question, can be said to turn them over to the trustee who is substitut ed in his place. Judge Clark, however, thinks it difficult thus to differentiate ■ between various forms ■ of property, and on the whole undesirable since the statute merely states the maximum ■ allowable compensation and this interpretation will restrict judicial discretion; he concurs in the denial of compensation here ”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Nor do any equities favor a “barred” creditor; for, while, as against the bankrupt, he has ... a good claim to be paid, we cannot see why, as between himself and his more diligent fellows, he should be allowed to reap where he has not sown. They have not misled him; he took his chances as to the assets, they did not; they should not be compelled to feed his lamp with oil from their own; he must be content that his former plight has been relieved vis-a-vis the only person against whom he has any shadow of grievance.”
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.